RTI Service Delivery Model for Students with ADHD

Introduction to RTI Planning

Delivering adequate resources to children with learning differences is not a haphazard undertaking. On the contrary, it requires a predetermined plan and the coordinated combination of several different entities in order to achieve success. A Response to Intervention (RTI) plan is necessary to adequately combine a variety of resources and approaches to supporting a student with his or her particular learning difference. RTI plans involve service delivery on multiple levels to account for the critical phases of development in students' lives, including not just their cognitive development but their emotional and social development as well. These plans require sufficient coordination of resources in a streamlined approach so that the student is ultimately able to benefit from them. This paper creates a service delivery model for a fictional special education student named Justin. Justin appears generally congenial and has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He has demonstrated some academic proficiency and would likely benefit from a multi-tiered plan to address his learning difference.

Eligibility Criteria for Special Education Services

Justin is eligible to receive services for students with learning differences — as well as a variety of accommodations — based on his diagnosis of ADHD. Students who can demonstrate that they have a clinically identified learning difference (formerly referred to as a learning disability) are permitted certain accommodations in the classroom. These students frequently have access to additional resources and accommodations outside the classroom to aid in their learning as well. According to Justin's background file, on April 11, 2005, Justin received a referral for ADHD based on a formal assessment. Such a referral means that Justin should have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and that he is eligible for accommodations to counteract the effects of ADHD and enable him to access the same quality of education available to students without such a diagnosis. Justin is entitled to these accommodations because he has been formally diagnosed with a learning disorder by a licensed practitioner in the field.

Assessment Tools and Justification

It is vital to utilize a variety of assessment tools to determine Justin's performance levels. Using more than one measure of assessment is critical to ensuring that evaluators can form an accurate analysis of the learner's academic abilities. The Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement is one such instrument that will be deployed to determine Justin's performance level; the Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS) is another. These tools assess the learner's capacity for language arts, stratifying its various facets in highly nuanced and targeted ways that provide a substantial degree of insight beyond what other tools offer. They include separate measures for reading, writing, and oral language comprehension, all of which are useful in supporting Justin in this academic area. A previous assessment using these instruments indicated that Justin requires more assistance in language arts than in other subjects — and considerably more so than in mathematics.

Research supports the use of the Woodcock Johnson III for assessing students like Justin in multiple ways. The test's norming sample included students with disabilities (Navarro, 2010, p. 6), which is important for the validity of comparisons. The validity of this instrument is evaluated in terms of content, construct, and concurrent validity; these various categories fall in "the moderate to high range" (Navarro, 2010, p. 6). Statistical reliability data are also meritorious: median reliability coefficients are reported at .80, rising to .90 and above for clustered items (Navarro, 2010, p. 9). Reliability testing for the Oral and Written Language Scales "supports the use of the OWLS Written Expression Scale as an early norm-referenced measure to reliably gauge...English writing skills" (Harrison et al., 2011, p. 319).

Conclusion

Overall, there are numerous facets to constructing a credible Response to Intervention plan that incorporates a multi-tiered service delivery model for a student with a learning difference. It is necessary to involve team members from a variety of domains to account for the social, cognitive, and emotional dimensions of students' needs. If Justin receives the resources he needs from these different domains, he should be well positioned to overcome his learning difference and pursue a lengthy, successful academic career. It is necessary to assess his learning potential with multiple instruments to ensure that the team is working toward his specific goals, and it is equally important to evaluate the reliability and validity of those instruments before deploying them.

References

Bergin, E., & Logan, A. (2013). An Individual Education Plan for pupils with special education needs: How inclusive is the process for the pupil? Reach, 26(2), 79–91.

Harrison, G. L., Ogle, K. C., & Keilty, M. (2011). The reliability of the OWLS Written Expression Scale with ESL kindergarten students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26(4), 319–328.

de Apodaca, R., Gentling, D., Steinhaus, J., & Rosenberg, E. (2015). Parental involvement as a mediator of academic performance among special education middle school students. The School Community Journal, 25(2), 35–54.

Navarro, F. H. (2010). The Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability. Retrieved from

Stanley, S. L. G. (2015). The advocacy efforts of African-American mothers of children with disabilities in rural special education: Considerations for school professionals. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(4), 3–17.