Responding to Nonresponders: An Experimental Field Trial of Identification and Intervention Methods

1
Responding to Nonresponders An Experimental
Field Trial of Identification and Intervention
Methods
Kristen L. McMaster University of
Minnesota Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, and
Donald L. Compton Peabody College of Vanderbilt
University
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December
4-5, 2003 Kansas City, Missouri The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a
collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas,
sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on
responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The
symposium was made possible by the support of the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project
Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the
position of the U.S. Department of
Education. When citing materials presented
during the symposium, please use the following
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S.,
Compton, D. L. (2003, December). Responding to
nonresponders An experimental field trial of
identification and intervention methods. Paper
presented at the National Research Center on
Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Interventi
on Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
2
Recognized Facts

• Over the past 20 years, weve learned that most
  poor readers have phonological processing
  problems and poor word recognition skills.
• Programs emphasizing phonological awareness and
  decoding can greatly improve many young
  childrens reading performance.

3
Yet, A Persistent Problem
A sizable minority of students remain
unresponsive to generally effective reading
programs

• 20 30 of children at risk
• 50 or more among children with high-incidence
  disabilities

4
Two General Approaches to Unresponsive Students

• Special-education-like approach Students
  temporarily removed from the classroom to receive
  focused supplemental reading instruction from
  well-trained teachers.
• General-education approach Begins with classroom
  teacher adapting instruction, curricula, and
  materials. Important because many students
  reading problems are due to poor classroom
  instruction and because current reforms emphasize
  the classroom as a first step in addressing
  students academic problems.

5
Purpose
Experimental study of two alternative
interventions for students unresponsive to
generally effective classroom instruction

• Individualized adaptations of classroom
  instruction.
• More intensive one-to-one tutoring.

6
Participants

• 8 Metro-Nashville Public Schools
• 4 high poverty Title I 4 middle class
• 33 first-grade teacher volunteers, stratified by
  Title I vs. middle class schools, randomly
  assigned within school to one of 3 conditions
  Standard PALS (n 11), PALS Fluency (n 11),
  and no-treatment controls.
• No-treatment controls did not participate in
  present study and Standard PALS and PALS
  Fluency classes combined to create 22 PALS
  study classes.

7
Identifying Nonresponders
Risk Pool

• 8 students in each of 22 PALS classes chosen as
  lowest-achieving based on RLN scores and
  teacher judgment (N 176 22 classes x 8
  students).

Nonresponders

• Monitoring of risk pool for first 7 weeks of PALS
  on
• PALS unit tests (percentage of items correct)
• Dolch Word List (number of words read correctly
  in 1 min.)
• Nonword Fluency Test (number of phonemes read
  correctly in 1 min.)

8
Identifying Nonresponders(Contd)

• Z-scores computed for risk pools level of
  performance and rate of growth on both Dolch and
  NWF using 88 average achievers performance (4
  average achievers x 22 classrooms).
• Students identified as nonresponders who scored
  (a) lt 90 on the last PALS unit test, and (b)
  scored at least .5 SDs below average achievers
  on Dolch Word List and NWF test.
• 66 nonresponders identified or 38 of risk pool
  and 14 of general population (N 484 22
  classes x 22 students per class)

9
Treatment Levels
Control PALS

• Students continue with PALS program in their
  classrooms, 35 min. per day, 3 x per wk.

Adapted PALS

• Students continue working with a partner in their
  classrooms during PALS
• Coach is trained to provide more modeling and
  feedback
• Lessons introduce sounds and words at a slower
  pace
• 35 min. per day, 3 x per wk.

Tutoring

• Students work with a trained adult tutor outside
  the classroom during PALS
• Students are trained to mastery on sounds and
  words
• 35 min. per day, 3 x per week
• Treatment Duration 12 weeks

10
Fidelity of Treatment
Control PALS

• Checklist of teacher and student behavior
• Fidelity checked in December and March in each of
  22 classes
• Mean fidelity across teachers and students 92

Adapted PALS

• All students and their partners observed once in
  April
• Mean fidelity 86 range 49 100

Tutoring

• Each of 8 tutors participated in simulated
  tutoring sessions
• Mean fidelity 97
• One tutoring session per student audiotaped
• Mean fidelity 96

11
Findings
No statistically significant differences in
reading among students in PALS, Adapted PALS, and
Tutoring

• Were the interventions insufficiently long or
  intense?
• Was the nature of the interventions too similar?
• Was our statistical power too low?

12
Effect Sizes (ESs)

• ESs indicated greatest growth among Tutored
  students on
• Word attack
• Comprehension
• Greatest responsiveness among Tutored students on
  growth criteria.
• When considering prior evidence of tutoring
  effectiveness, our results can be interpreted as
  indicating the superiority of tutoring over
  classroom adaptations. (The joint p-value of our
  findings others findings is low.)

13
Effect Sizes by Secondary Intervention Option
14
Proportion Nonresponders by Secondary
Intervention Option and Criterion
Final Status
15
Adapted PALS

• Wide range of fidelity (given teachers
  inadequate monitoring).
• For students demonstrating poor responsiveness to
  generally effective classroom instruction,
  adaptations of that instruction may be
  inadequate.
• However, dont forget the ES for Word ID (.44).
  Classroom adaptations may adequately address some
  dimensions of reading development more than
  others. Repeated exposure to words, supervised by
  capable peers, may benefit Word ID development.
  By contrast, Word Attack may require trained
  adult tutors.

16
Criteria for Identifying Nonresponders

• Final status percentile rank and growth produced
  similar rates of LD as traditional methods (7
  8).
• Final status benchmark appears too stringent.
  Students grow well without achieving benchmark
  prevalence rate 17.