Implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI) Model in Spain: an example of a collaboration between Canarian universities and the department of education of the Canary Islands

  1. Jiménez González, Juan Eugenio
  2. Rodríguez Rodríguez, Cristina
  3. Crespo Alberto, Patricia
  4. González Martín, Desirée
  5. Artiles Hernández, Ceferino
  6. Afonso Cabrera, Miguel
Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2010

Volume: 22

Issue: 4

Pages: 935-942

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Implementación del Modelo de Respuesta a la Intervención (RtI) en España: un ejemplo de colaboración entre las Universidades Canarias y la Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Canarias. El objetivo de este estudio consistió en examinar la efi cacia del segundo nivel de actuación del modelo de respuesta a la intervención. El estudio se llevó a cabo en las Islas Canarias (España), dirigido por el equipo de investigación «Difi cultades de Aprendizaje, Psicolingüística y Nuevas Tecnologías» (DEA&NT) de la Universidad de La Laguna, y apoyado por la Dirección General de Ordenación e Innovación Educativa de la Consejería de Educación del Gobierno de Canarias. Se administró inicialmente a una muestra de 1.123 niños españoles procedentes de un total de catorce colegios, la adaptación española del The Hong Kong Specifi c Learning Diffi culties Behavior Checklist. Los niños que puntuaban igual o superior al percentil 75 en esta prueba de selección eran considerados niños en riesgo de padecer difi cultades específi cas de aprendizaje. La mitad de los niños se asignó al azar a una condición experimental donde recibieron una intervención en pequeño grupo con una duración diaria de 30 minutos a través del programa Prevención de las Difi cultades Específi cas de Aprendizaje (PREDEA). Esta intervención se inició a mediados del mes de diciembre y fi nalizó a mediados del mes de junio. La otra mitad recibía los servicios habituales de apoyo que tiene disponible la escuela. Los resultados mostraron que los niños que recibieron el programa curricular PREDEA alcanzaron puntuaciones superiores al grupo control en habilidades que mide el Early Grade Reading Assessment Test (EGRA), tales como la identifi cación del primer segmento fonológico en palabras, comprensión oral, conocimiento del sonido de las letras y fl uidez en lectura oral de palabras en textos cortos.

Bibliographic References

  • Baker, R.H., Good, Knutson, N., & Watson, J.M. (2006). Indicadores dinámicos del éxito en la lectura (7a ed.). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. Available: http://www.dibels.uoregon.edu/.
  • Berkeley, S., Bender, W.N., Gregg, L., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention. A Shapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85-95.
  • Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention: 1997. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 8-13.
  • Fuchs, D., y Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
  • Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
  • Gove, A. (2008). Early grade reading assessment toolkit. World Bank and RTI International, Washington, D.C.
  • Grigorenko, E.L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111-132.
  • Guzmán, R., & Jiménez, J.E. (2001). Estudio normativo sobre parámetros psicolingüísticos en niños de 6 a 8 años: la familiaridad subjetiva. Cognitiva, 13, 153-191.
  • Ho, C.S.H., Chan, D.W.O., Tsang, S.M., & Lee, S.H. (2002). The Hong Kong test of specific learning difficulties in reading and writing (HKT-SpLD) (Hong Kong, Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Research Team).
  • Hurford, D.P., Johnston, M., Nepote, P., Hampton, S., Moore, Sh., Neal, J., et al. (1994). Early identification and remediation of phonological processing deficits in first-grade children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 647-659.
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
  • Jenkins, J.R., Hudson, R.F., & Johnson, E.S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582-600.
  • Jiménez, J.E., & García, I. (1999). Is IQ-ahievement discrepancy relevant in the definition of arithmetic learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 291-301.
  • Jiménez, J.E., & Hernández-Valle, I. (1999). A Spanish perspective on learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 267-275 (Spanish translation in EduPsykhé, 2002, 1, 275-293).
  • Jiménez, J.E., & O'Shanahan, I. (2009). Enseñanza de la lectura: de la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 45, 1-22.
  • Jiménez, J.E., & Rodrigo, M. (1994). Is it true that the differences in reading performance between students with and without LD cannot be explained by IQ? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 155-163.
  • Jiménez, J.E., Siegel,L.S., O'Shanahan, I., & Ford, L. (2009). The relatives roles of IQ and cognitive processes in reading disability. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 27-43.
  • Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., & Byrd, S.E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 569-572.
  • Kavale, K.A. (2002). Discrepancy models in identification of learning disability. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.): Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 369-426). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • McLaughlin, M.J., Dyson, A., Nagle, K., Thurlow, M., Rouse, M., Hardman, M., Norwich, B., Burke, P., & Perlin, M. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 46-58.
  • Mathes, P.G., Linan-Thompson, S., Pollard-Duradola, S.D., Hagan, E.C., & Vaughn, S. (2003). Lectura proactive para principiantes: Intensive small group instruction for Spanish speaking readers. Developed with funds provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (#HD-99-012), Development of English Literacy in Spanish Speaking Children.
  • National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2007). Core concepts of RTI. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://www.nrcld.org.
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D.D: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Rodrigo, M., & Jiménez, J.E. (2000). IQ vs phonological recoding skill in explaining differences between poor readers and normal readers in word recognition: Evidence from a naming task. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 129-142.
  • Semrud-Clikeman M. (2005). Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 563-568.
  • Share D.L., McGee R., & Silva P.A. (1989). IQ and reading progress: A test of the capacity notion of IQ. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 97-100.
  • Siegel, L.S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201-215.
  • Siegel, L.S. (1989). I.Q. is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-478.
  • Siegel, L.S. (1990). IQ and learning disabilities: R.I.P. In H.L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.): Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 111-128). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA.
  • Siegel, L.S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618-629.
  • Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Stanovich, K.E. (1989). Has the learning disabilities field lost its intelligence? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 487-492.
  • Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Are discrepancy-based definitions of dyslexia empirically defensible? In K.P. Van den Bos, L.S. Siegel, D.J. Bakker, & D.L. Share (Eds.): Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 15-30). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  • Torgesen, J.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.
  • Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
  • Vellutino, F.R, Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readly remediated poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
  • Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Chen, R., Pratt, A., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
  • Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 437-480.
  • Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541-561.
Data source: Dialnet