Reliability of decision-making frameworks for response to intervention for reading

Matthew K Burns, Sarah E. Scholin, Stacey Kosciolek, Judy Livingston

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

23 Scopus citations


The current study examines the consistency of two response-to-intervention (RTI) decision-making models. Weekly progress monitoring data for 30 students participating in a Tier II intervention were collected for 30 weeks. The data were examined by comparing them to an aimline with a yearly goal and by computing a dual discrepancy (DD) using numerical slope and postintervention reading level. A κ coefficient was computed between the two models regarding student growth using three categorical decisions of making sufficient progress, not making sufficient progress, and exceeding expected progress. The resulting coefficient of .29 represents fair agreement. Data were also assigned to one of two sets in an every-other order, with resulting new aimlines and new DDs. The consistency between the two sets of data resulted in coefficients of κ = .29 for aimline and κ = .58 for DD. Finally, the standard error of measurement for the baseline data point affected the decision made (κ = .13) for aimline but not for DD (κ = .93). Implications for research, practice, and special education decision making are included.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)102-114
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Bibliographical note

Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.


  • Progress monitoring
  • Reading assessment
  • Response to intervention

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reliability of decision-making frameworks for response to intervention for reading'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this