Gated Screening Frameworks for Academic Concerns: the Influence of Redundant Information on Diagnostic Accuracy Outcomes

Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. (NCEE 2016–4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Catts, H. W., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Sittner Bridges, M., & Mednoza, K. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326219 .

Center on Response to Intervention (2016). Screening tools chart. http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/Screening_Tools_Chart_2014_v2.pdf

Clemens, N. H., Keller-Magulis, M. A., Scholten, T., & Yoon, M. (2016). Screening assessment within a multi-tiered system of support: current practices, advances, and next steps. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (2nd ed., pp. 187–212). New York: Routledge.

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A., Cho, E., & Crouch, R. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: eliminating false positive and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448 .

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: a two year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394 .

Deno, S. L. (2005). Problem-solving assessment within curriculum-based measurement (cbm). In Rachel Chidsey-Brown (Ed.) Problem-solving based assessment for educational intervention. Guilford Press: New York.

Elliott, S. N., Huai, N., & Roach, A. T. (2007). Universal and early screening for educational difficulties: current and future approaches. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.002 .

Genz, A., Bretz, F., Miwa, T., Mi, X., Leisch, F., & Scheipl, F. (2017). mvtnorm: multivariate and t distributions. R package version 1.0–6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mvtnorm .

Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: recommendations for a four step system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508412451491 .

Glover, T. A., & Albers, C. A. (2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.005 .

Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Caffrey, E. (2011). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: implications for rti frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407864 .

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart rti: a next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.

Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of r-cbm and high stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386.

Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: a research-based summary. Theory Into Practice, 50, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534909 .

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.

Jenkins, J. R., Schiller, E., Blackorby, J., Thayer, S. K., & Tilly, W. D. (2013). Responsiveness to intervention in reading: architecture and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712464963 .

Leblanc, M., Dufore, E., & McDougal, J. (2012). Using general outcome measures to predict student performance on state-mandated assessments: an applied approach for establishing predictive cutscores. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643753 .

Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x .

Nelson, P. M., Van Norman, E. R., & Lackner, S. K. (2016). A comparison of methods to screen students for reading and math difficulties. School Psychology Review, 45, 327–342 doi: 17105/SPR45-3.327-342.

R Core Team (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ .

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early intervention in reading: the lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.

VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2013). Universal screening may not be for everyone: using a threshold model as a smarter way to determine risk. School Psychology Review, 42, 402–414.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Codding, R. S., & Martin, R. (2017). Relative value of common screening measures. School Psychology Review, 46, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR46-1.65-87 .

Van Norman, E. R., Nelson, P. M., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2016). Single measure and gated screening approaches for identifying students at-risk for academic problems: implications for sensitivity and specificity. School Psychology Quarterly, 32, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000177 .