The Study of Using RTI in Identifying Students with Reading Disabilities in Elementary Schools

• Main Authors: Shu-Mei Ho, 何淑玫
• Other Authors: Li-Yu Hung
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/92429061591376495246

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 特殊教育學系在職進修碩士班 === 103 === The purpose of this research is to:identify what the response to intervention (RTI) criteria of non-responsiveness is by utilizing the simulated validity diagnosed within classification of reading disabilities; and comparie the responsived(R) with the non-responsived(NR) groups in intelligence, basic reading skills, and special needs. There are 27 fifth-grade students participanted in this study, who attended a one-year evidenced-based literacy remedial program, in an elementary school in New Taipei City. The classifications of candidate indicators of RTI in this study are discrepant score of pretest and posttest, post-treatment level of performance, and dual discrepancy. The stimulated validity of candidate indicators of RTI in this study came from the classification of reading disabilities, and the relevance of simulated validity depending upon the prevalence of reading disability students, the ratio of types of reading disabilities, and the external validity of diagnoses of reading disability students identified by the city government. There are three majory findings. First, the optimal RTI classification indicator is the accuracy or fluency of word recognition in norm referenced approach with -1SD cutoff. The advantages of this indicator are high sensitivity (81.3%) and accuracy (77.8%) with low false positive and false negative ratio; more important, this indicator is able to completly detect dyslexia and language learning disabilities, and the flaw of false negative can be modified via follow-up evaluation of identification. Second, the diagnostic criteria of reading disabilities in this research is -1SD cutoff, the final results are accordance with the prevalence and the ratio of types of reading disabilities within literature reviews. Furthermore, the external validity of diagnoses of reading disability students is good. Third, there are no significant differences between R and NR groups in intelligence test. Except the accuracy and fluency of word recognition and text, there are no significant differences in reading comprehension, listening comprehension and dictation in the two groups. Furthermore, NR group represent lower performances than R group in the characteristics of “reading influent” and “hard to comprehend abstract symbols or phrases”, whereas there is no significant difference within the two groups in these characteristics of special needs. Additionally, the R group with the characteristic of “difficult to write down a complete and clear sentence” provide a clue to avoid the neglect of the false negative students to be unidentified. In light of the findings of the RTI operation in reading disabilities identifications, the researcher provid some suggestions for practice in schools and future research.