FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W49767965> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W49767965 endingPage "299" @default.
• W49767965 startingPage "296" @default.
• W49767965 abstract "We appreciate the opportunity provided by the editor to respond to the commentary on our article (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2010). We also appreciate the editorial team of School Psychology Review for selecting our article as a Featured Article within the journal (Vaughn, Cirino et al., 2010). We interpret this as an indication of the interest in response to intervention (RTI) broadly and particularly as it relates to understanding reading interventions for secondary students within an RTI framework. Our intention in this commentary is not to provide a rebuttal to the comments made by Fuchs et al. (2010)--because we agree fundamentally with their commentary. However, we want to clarify some of the essential issues related to RTI with secondary students and our understanding resulting from several years of conducting assessments and experimental studies within an RTI framework in middle schools (Denton et al., in press; Vaughn et al., 2008; Vaughn, Cirino et al., 2010, Vaughn et al., 2009). Identification and Screening for At-Risk Readers in Secondary Grades We agree with Fuchs et al. (2010) that RTI at the secondary level must be different in some fundamental ways from RTI at the elementary level. We think that one of the fundamental issues pertains to universal screening. We argue that universal screening for reading problems at the secondary level--considered by most to be an essential feature of RTI at the elementary level--can be accomplished through extant data sources and in most cases does not require additional testing. By the time students reach the sixth grade and higher, educators have considerable information about which students demonstrate reading difficulties. Data sources such as statecriterion-referenced reading assessments and yearly norm-referenced reading achievement tests are commonly available, often with other progress monitoring measures used to document students' progress. Based on our recent studies and the observations of Fuchs et al. (2010), these data sources can provide reliable information to determine which older students are at risk for reading problems and require further intervention. If these measures are employed as screening tools, their use may not simply be a matter of passing or failing, and some scrutiny may be required to determine the level of performance associated with risk status. Although our experiences and studies have shown that this can be done in reading, we suspect a similar process can also be conducted in other academic areas, such as math. In reading, most of these assessments involve comprehension, so some follow-up assessments may be needed to identify the domains of reading that require intervention, but this can be brief. In general, this approach conserves resources for intervention, which should always be the highest priority for students who are struggling. We think that the best way to identify the majority of students who need additional intervention at sixth grade and above is based on consistently low achievement in an academic area of significance despite overall strong instruction at the classroom level using research-based interventions. Tiers of Intervention for Older Students With Reading Difficulties Fundamental to the successful implementation of RTI with younger students is the implementation of successively more intensive tiers of intervention to respond to students' instructional needs based on their lack of response to previously implemented research-derived interventions. Our empirical evidence from multiple intervention studies as well as our clinical experience indicates that secondary students with low reading achievement can be assigned to less or more intensive interventions based on their current reading achievement scores rather than moving them from less intensive to more intensive interventions based on their response. We agree with Fuchs et al. (2010) that there is both empirical and practical evidence to support this view. …" @default.
• W49767965 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W49767965 creator A5022208991 @default.
• W49767965 creator A5078597198 @default.
• W49767965 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W49767965 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W49767965 title "Thoughts on Rethinking Response to Intervention With Secondary Students" @default.
• W49767965 cites W1487265313 @default.
• W49767965 cites W1542932330 @default.
• W49767965 cites W1938420750 @default.
• W49767965 cites W1966280192 @default.
• W49767965 cites W2005657322 @default.
• W49767965 cites W2065223846 @default.
• W49767965 cites W2087129347 @default.
• W49767965 cites W2108378024 @default.
• W49767965 cites W2108631932 @default.
• W49767965 cites W2150052952 @default.
• W49767965 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087780" @default.
• W49767965 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3129630" @default.
• W49767965 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21738283" @default.
• W49767965 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W49767965 type Work @default.
• W49767965 sameAs 49767965 @default.
• W49767965 citedByCount "42" @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652012 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652013 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652014 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652015 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652016 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652017 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652018 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652019 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652021 @default.
• W49767965 countsByYear W497679652023 @default.
• W49767965 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W49767965 hasAuthorship W49767965A5022208991 @default.
• W49767965 hasAuthorship W49767965A5078597198 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C172712801 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C2780665704 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C2780732545 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C28858896 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W49767965 hasConcept C75630572 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C118552586 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C138496976 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C145420912 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C15744967 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C172712801 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C19417346 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C2780665704 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C2780732545 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C28858896 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C509550671 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C71924100 @default.
• W49767965 hasConceptScore W49767965C75630572 @default.
• W49767965 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W49767965 hasLocation W497679651 @default.
• W49767965 hasLocation W497679652 @default.
• W49767965 hasOpenAccess W49767965 @default.
• W49767965 hasPrimaryLocation W497679651 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W1989306502 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W2034812239 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W2059054421 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W2096867875 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W2104419367 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W2216491864 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W2322659066 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W3165261954 @default.
• W49767965 hasRelatedWork W52423885 @default.
• W49767965 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W49767965 isParatext "false" @default.
• W49767965 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W49767965 magId "49767965" @default.
• W49767965 workType "article" @default.