Al Otaiba Stephanie, Connor Carol M, Folsom Jessica S, Wanzek Jeanne, Greulich Luana, Schatschneider Christopher, Wagner Richard K
Southern Methodist University.
Arizona State University.
Except Child. 2014 Oct 1;81(1):11-27. doi: 10.1177/0014402914532234.
This randomized controlled experiment compared the efficacy of two Response to Intervention (RTI) models - Typical RTI and Dynamic RTI - and included 34 first-grade classrooms ( = 522 students) across 10 socio-economically and culturally diverse schools. Typical RTI was designed to follow the two-stage RTI decision rules that wait to assess response to Tier 1 in many districts, whereas Dynamic RTI provided Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions immediately according to students' initial screening results. Interventions were identical across conditions except for when intervention began. Reading assessments included letter-sound, word, and passage reading, and teacher-reported severity of reading difficulties. An intent-to-treat analysis using multi-level modeling indicated an overall effect favoring the Dynamic RTI condition ( = .36); growth curve analyses demonstrated that students in Dynamic RTI showed an immediate score advantage, and effects accumulated across the year. Analyses of standard score outcomes confirmed that students in the Dynamic condition who received Tier 2 and Tier 3 ended the study with significantly higher reading performance than students in the Typical condition. Implications for RTI implementation practice and for future research are discussed.
这项随机对照实验比较了两种干预反应（RTI）模式——典型RTI和动态RTI——的效果，研究涵盖了10所社会经济和文化背景各异的学校中的34个一年级班级（n = 522名学生）。典型RTI旨在遵循两阶段RTI决策规则，在许多学区中，该规则会等待评估对第一层级的反应，而动态RTI则根据学生的初始筛查结果立即提供第二层级或第三层级的干预措施。除干预开始时间外，各条件下的干预措施均相同。阅读评估包括字母发音、单词和篇章阅读，以及教师报告的阅读困难严重程度。使用多层次建模的意向性分析表明，总体效果有利于动态RTI条件（d = 0.36）；生长曲线分析表明，动态RTI中的学生显示出即时的分数优势，且效果在全年中不断累积。标准分数结果分析证实，接受第二层级和第三层级干预的动态条件下的学生在研究结束时的阅读表现显著高于典型条件下的学生。文中讨论了对RTI实施实践和未来研究的启示。
