以教學反應模式（RTI）做為學習障礙鑑定工具的議題下，第二層次的介入尤其重要，因為必須兼具補救與診斷的功能，除了選擇適當的教學模式進行重要教學成分之有效教學之外，更重要的是必須能決定適當的教學反應標準做為資格鑑定的參考。
本研究主要研究目的有二，係透過執行國語文低成就學生在接受第二層級的語文補救教學方案過程時定期監控學生在語文相關能力的變化情形，先探究第二層級教學反應標準對於鑑別「無教學反應者」（Non-Responder，NR）的可行性，再檢驗第二層級教學反應標準對於研判「閱讀障礙」（Reading Disabilities，RD）的有效性。
研究樣本資料取自國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與研究中心語文科補救教學課程之部份資料，並依研究目的不同分別為完整參與補救教學課程的70名實驗組學生及經過家長同意接受閱讀障礙綜合研判之53名學生等兩群人。實驗組學生接受研究者提供為期一年小組形式、每週2-3次、共計44節之閱讀理解補救教學方案，該方案屬於標準計畫取向之層次二補救教學，教學者全程接受課程督導以控制教學執行度。全體學生在一年中接受5次已建有複本之詞彙成長測驗、閱讀理解成長測驗，所有測驗分數以Embreston’s multidimentsional trait model 估計出個人能力值(θ，theta)，研究者得以比較及監控群體語文相關能力改變情形。
本研究對於無教學反應者的參考標準係根據過去研究文獻建議之閱讀成就表現低落程度，各種教學反應標準之設計亦是採用研究常用的「能力參照標準」、「界定教學反應的方法」和「切截點」等操作原則，閱讀障礙資格之確認則是採用國內學者柯華葳、洪儷瑜等(2007)建議的研判標準，由受過專業訓練且得到認證之心評人員實施，並取得專家審查通過。主要分析方法為KAPPA一致性分析、分類分析法等相關考驗。
主要研究發現如下：（一）國中階段的教學反應標準，應該同時考慮「詞彙」及「閱讀理解」兩種語文能力做為參照指標，採用同時評估「最後表現水準」及「成長速率」的「雙重差距標準」，為求方便解釋及使用，建議可優先採用常模參照取向之標準；（二）根據整體分類正確率、敏感性、特異性、陽性預測率及陰性預測率等指標之效度檢驗結果，建議「較佳之教學反應標準」有二：其一為採用「詞彙能力」測驗，並使用「最後表現水準（常模參照-1.0SD）+成長速率（平均成長率-1.0SD）」的雙重差距標準（簡稱標準A）；其二為採用「閱讀理解能力」測驗，並使用「最後表現水準（常模參照-0.5SD）+成長速率（平均成長率-0.5SD）」的雙重差距標準（簡稱標準B）；（三）根據臨床研判效能檢驗結果，研究者建議應綜合運用「較佳的教學反應標準」（也就是考量標準A或標準B落入NR即可），其整體研判正確率為62.26%，敏感性指標為67.86%，特異性指標為56.00%，尚稱理想，且相較於過去之轉介流程設計而言，能夠降低轉介學障鑑定之人數達將近一半的比例，且相對有較高的確認閱讀障礙比例；（四）針對此一階段之偽陽性及偽陰性問題，應可透過轉介機制的後續階段提供其他評估工具來輔助研判及排除其他可能的障礙類別。
基於研究結果和發現，研究者進一步提出在教育實務及未來研究之相關建議。

In the Response to intervention model, which has been conceptualized as a prevention and remediation framework, progress data of students who are receiving Tier 2 interventions is monitored in order to inform instructional practice as well as make decisions about student’s movement between tiers of intervention, and serves as a more valid method of identification of disabilities.
The main purposes of this study were to compare different measurements and methods of establishing adequate criteria used to identify non-responders (NR), and to analyze the validity of the results of NR by verifying that the results were consistent with the students who had been determined to have RD using a comprehensive evaluation.
The study, conducted from 2011-2012, was comprised of seventh-grade students from eleven schools in two counties in northern Taiwan. These students included 70 disadvantaged, low-achieving students who attended a one-year literacy remedial program, qualified as a standard protocol approach Tier 2 intervention, with more intensive sessions in small groups. Out of the 70, 53 finished the comprehensive evaluation with parents’ consent followed Ko & Hung’s (2007) suggestion for RD identification.
Every student was assessed 5 times during the year at 2-month intervals using both word knowledge test (CWKPM, Hung, et al., 2011) and passage reading test (CPRPM, Hung, et al., 2011), and all test scores were transformed by Embreston's multidimensional trait model to estimate personal abilities (θ). Therefore the researcher was able to compare and monitor changes in growth among the students. All possible combinations of cut-points, methods and measures surveyed from previous studies were compared, and the analytic approach included Kappa statistic and classification analysis etc.
The main findings were as follows: 1) As determining a suitable criteria of response to intervention in secondary school level, selecting dual discrepancy both from word knowledge and reading comprehension abilities were preferred because of its stability and coverage in NR. For an easier understanding and application, norm reference approach could be a nice choice. 2) From the result of classification agreement analysis, two better criteria of response to intervention were suggested. The first one was using dual discrepancy of CWKPM with -1.0SD cutoff (referred to as criteria A), and the second one was using dual discrepancy of CPRPM with -0.5SD cutoff (referred to as criteria B). 3) Based on the clinical validation, the researcher recommended the combined usage of criteria A and B, since this combination produced an acceptable overall success rate (62.26%), and sensitivity of 67.86% was associated with specificity of 56.00%. Furthermore, adding this stage could reduce almost half of the students for RD evaluation compared to the prior referral procedure. 4) Using RTI as a pre-referral stage of RD identification, should be followed by the diagnostic and exclusive criteria to solve the false positive and false negative problems.
Based on research findings, the researcher also makes some suggestions for educational practices and future researches.

中文部分
台灣學障學會（2009）：學習障礙學生有多少？在哪裡？台北市：作者。
吳美燕（2007）：教學反應模式在鑑定國小四年級閱讀障礙學生可行性之研究。臺北市立教育大學特殊教育學系身心障礙教育教學碩士學位班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
李俊仁（2010）：智力與閱讀障礙。載於柯華葳編，中文閱讀障礙，115-129。臺北：心理出版社。
李珮瑜、洪儷瑜（2013年6月）：補救教學的另一種模式：大學與縣市政府合作執行補救教學的現況與困難。海報發表於2013年【永齡希望小學】執行成果暨補救教學學術研討會(2013.6.28)。臺灣：臺北。
教育部（2013）：身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定辦法。台北：作者。
柯華葳（2007）：中文閱讀障礙診斷流程與測驗簡介。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅 （2008）：臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養 (PIRLS 2006 報告)。中壢：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。
柯華葳、詹益綾（2007）：閱讀理解篩選測驗。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
柯華葳、詹益綾、丘嘉慧（ 2013）：臺灣四年級學生閱讀素養─PIRLS 2011 報告。中壢：國立中央大學學習與教學研究所。

洪儷瑜（2005）：學習障礙鑑定工作檢討與建議-由「各縣市實施學習障礙學生鑑定工作調查表」談起。教育部委託報告。
洪儷瑜（2011）：以能力素養為本位的語文補救教學─國中語文精進課程說明。載於洪儷瑜、陳秀芬、劉淑貞、李思慧、李珮瑜主編之語文精進教材試用版-模組一：記敘文（故事）（第1-17頁）。台北：臺灣師大教評中心。
洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬（2007a）：識字量估計測驗。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
洪儷瑜、王瓊珠、張郁雯、陳秀芬（2007b）：常見字流暢性測驗。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
洪儷瑜（2012）：學習障礙鑑定原則鑑定辦法說明。臺北市：作者。
洪儷瑜、何淑玫（2010）：「介入反應」在特殊教育的意義與運用。特殊教育季刊，115, 1-12。
洪儷瑜、張郁雯、丘彥南、孟瑛如、蔡明富（2001）：問題行為篩選量表指導手冊。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
洪儷瑜、陳心怡、陳柏熹（2011）：詞彙測驗。未出版。
洪儷瑜、陳秀芬（2010）：國民小學寫字測驗。永齡教育基金會，未出版。
洪儷瑜、陳秀芬、李珮瑜、李思慧、詹琇晴、曾瓊禛（2013）：因應國中低成就學生教學輔導模式之建置子計畫一「國中國語文低成就學生之補救教學」之推動與執行（101.8.1 ~ 102.7.31）期末報告。臺北市：國立臺灣灣師範大學教育研究與評鑑中心。

（NSC100-10-H-003-097-MY2）
洪儷瑜、陳秀芬、劉淑貞、李思慧、李珮瑜（2011）：語文精進教材試用版-模組一：記敘文（故事）。臺北市：臺灣師大教評中心。
洪儷瑜、陳秀芬、劉淑貞、李珮瑜、李思慧主編（2012）：國中語文精進教材-模組二：記敘文（寫人）。臺北市：臺灣師大教評中心。
洪儷瑜、蘇宜芬、陳心怡、陳柏熹（2011a）：「介入反應的評估之建立和運用：4-6年級學生識字和理解能力之指標與發展曲線」期中進度報告。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫（編號NSC 100-2420-H-003 -003 -MY2）。
洪儷瑜、蘇宜芬、陳心怡、陳柏熹（2011b）：閱讀理解測驗。未出版。
張瀞文（2013年4月）：突破低成就，先學會怎麼「學」。親子天下實戰教養系列，132-133。
教育部（2012）：國民小學及國民中學補救教學實施方案。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2011a）：十二年國民基本教育手冊。2011年12月20日，取自：http://12basic.edu.tw/
教育部（2011b）：攜手計畫課後扶助方案介紹。2011年12月20日，取自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/EDU01/03.pdf
教育部特殊教育通報網（2011）：特殊教育統計查詢─99年度。2011年09月20日，取自：http://www.set.edu.tw/sta2/default.asp

陳玉燕（2010）：建構國中階段閱讀障礙學生教學反應模式之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
陳美芳（2007）：聽覺理解測驗。台北：教育部特殊教育工作小組。
陳淑麗（2009）：弱勢學童讀寫希望工程-課輔現場的瞭解與改造。臺北：心理。
陳淑麗、洪儷瑜、曾世杰（2005）：以國語補救教學診斷原住民低成就學童是否為學習障礙：轉介前介入的效度考驗研究。特殊教育研究學刊，29，127-150。
陳淑麗、洪儷瑜、曾世杰（2007）：轉介前介入在學障鑑定之可行性研究：以原住民低成就國小學童為例。特殊教育研究學刊，33（2），47-66。
陳淑麗、曾世杰、蔣汝梅（2012）：初級與次級國語文介入對弱勢低學力學校的成效研究：不同介入長度的比較。特殊教育研究學刊，37（3），27-58。
陳榮華、陳心怡（2007）：魏氏兒童智力量表第四版中文版。臺北：中國行為科學社。
單延愷、洪儷瑜（2006）：非語文學習障礙量表。未出版。
曾世杰、陳淑麗、蔣汝梅（2013）：提升教育優先區國民小學一年級學生的讀寫能力─多層級教學介入模式之探究。特殊教育研究學刊，38 （3），55-80。DOI: 10.6172/BSE.201311.3803003
曾瓊禛、洪儷瑜、孫瑜成、李思慧（2013年12月）：國中語文精進教材處遇精準度研究。論文發表於2013年中華民國特殊教育學會

（2013.12.07）。臺北：臺灣師大。
黃志強（2010）：應用教學反應模式對國小學習障礙學生鑑定之研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系博士論文，未出版，高雄。
甄曉蘭、洪儷瑜、胡文綺、陳秀芬、孫瑜成、李珮瑜、李思慧（2011）：偏遠地區教育機會與品質提升計畫之第二階段期末報告（100.1.1- 100.12.31）。臺北市：國立臺灣灣師範大學教育研究與評鑑中心。
臺灣師大教評中心語文科教材研發小組（2011）：教學檢核表。台北：臺灣師大教評中心。

英文部分
American Psychiatric Association.(2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, DSM-IV-TR (Test Revision), (4thEd.).Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Barth, A. E., Stuebing, K. K., Anthony, J. L, Denton, C. A., Mathes, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18,296-307.
Bateman, B. (1992). Learning disabilities: A changing landscape. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 29-36.
Bateman, M. D.(1965). An educational view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorder. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), LearningDisorders,Vol. 1 (pp. 219-239). Seattle, WA: Special Child.
Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., Resnick, B., Hecht, J., Minicucci, D. S., Ory,M., Ogedegbe, G., Orwig, D., Ernst, D., & Czajkowski,S. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change Studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium. Health Psychology, 23(5), 443–451. DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443

Bradley, R., Danielson, L. & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007.Teaching Exceptional Children,39(5), 8-12.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557-582.
Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298-338.
Corrin, W., Somers, M. A., Kemple, J., Nelson, E., & Sepanik, S. (2008). The enhanced reading opportunities study: Findings from the second year of implementation (NCEE 2009–4036). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
Denton, C. A., & Vaughn, S. (2010). Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Perspectives from research. In T.A. Glover, S. Vaughnand M. K. Burns(Eds). The Promise of Response to Intervention: Evaluating Current Science and Practice(pp. 78-112). New York: Guilford.

Deshler, D. (2009). What are the major differences between elementary and secondary RTI? Retrieved May 2, 2011, from http://www.rti4success.org/subcategorycontents/ask_the_experts
Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. (2008). Making Decisions about adequate progress in Tier 2. RTI Action Network. http://www.rtinetwork.org/ learn/ research/making-decisions- about-adequate- progress-in-tier-2
Edmonds, M.S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C.K., Cable, A., Tackett, K. & Wick, J.(2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading outcomes forolder struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262-300.
Espin, C., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J.D. (2010). Creating a progress-monitoring system in reading for middle-school students: Tracking toward meeting high-stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25(2), 60-75.
Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediatingacademic difficulties. Child Dev Perspective, 3(1), 30–37. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x.
Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-331.
Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R. (1994). Issues in definition and measurement of learning disabilities(pp. 185-200). Baltimore:

Brookes.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Classification, definition, and identification of learning disabilities. In J. M.Fletcher, G. R. Lyon, L. S. Fuchs, & M. A. Barnes (Eds.), Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention(pp. 25-63). New York: Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, R., Fuchs, L.S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: Fromidentification to intervention.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: An integrative perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 30-56). New York: Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Simos, P. G., Papanicolaou, A. C., & Denton, C. (2004). Neuroimaging in reading research. In N. Duke & M, Mallette (Eds.), Literacy Research Methodologies(pp. 252-286). New York: Guilford Press.
Florida Department of Education (2001). Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Foorman, B.R., & Schatschneider, C. (2003). Measuring teaching practices in reading/language arts instruction and their relation to student achievement. In S. Vaughn and K. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning. Baltimore,

MD: Brookes Publishing Co.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(2), 129-136.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, J., & Davis, G. N. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 413-436.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by responsivenessto-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216–227.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions,evidence, and implications for the learningdisabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 18(3), 157–171.
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing interventionresponsiveness: conceptualand technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 18(3), 172-186

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing theidentification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children,38(1), 57-61.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention.Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifyingconstruct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,25, 33-45.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22-28.
Gersten, R. & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.
Good, R. H. III, Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utilityof a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third grade high-stakesoutcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5,257–288.
Gresham, F.M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review,

18(1), 37–50.
Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M.E., & Bocian, K.M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 198–205.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle andhigh schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Hammill, D. D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities,23, 74-84.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.(2004). U.S. Department of Education. RetrievedDecember 26, 2011, from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108
James-Burdumy, S., Mansfield, W., Deke, J., Carey, N., Lugo-Gil, J., Hershey, A., Faddis, B. (2009). Effectiveness of selected supplemental reading comprehension interventions: Impacts on a first cohort of fifth-grade students (NCEE 2009-4032). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
Kemple, J., Corrin, W., Nelson, E., Salinger, T., Herrmann, S., Drummond, K., & Strasberg, P. (2008). The enhanced reading opportunities study:

Early impact and implementation findings (NCEE 2008-4015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
Kim, J. S., Capotosto, L., Hartry, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). Can a mixed-method literacy intervention improve the reading achievement of low-performing elementary school students in an after-school program? Results from a randomized controlled trial of READ 180 Enterprise. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 33(2), 183-201.
Kirk, S. A. (1963). Educating Exceptional Children.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kovaleski, J. F., & Black, L. (2010). Multi-Tier service delivery model: Current status and future directions. In T.A. Glover, S. Vaughnand M. K. Burns(Eds). The Promise of Response to Intervention: Evaluating Current Science and Practice(pp. 23-56). New York: Guilford.
Landis, J.R.; & Koch, G.G. (1977). "The measurement of observeragreement for categorical data". Biometrics,33(1),159–174.
Lang, L., Torgesen, J., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., Lefsky, E., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 149-175. doi:10.1080/19345740802641535
Laurice M. Joseph, L. M. &Schisler, R. (2009). Should adolescents go back to the basics? A review of teaching word reading skills to middle

and high school students. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 131-147.
Lerner, J.W. & Johns, B. H. (2012). Learning disabilitiesand related mild disabilities:Characteristics, teaching strategies, and new directions（12thed）.Boston: MA: Houghton Mufflin Co.
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding tononresponders: Anexperimentalfield trial of identificationand interventionmethods.Exceptional Children, 71,445−463.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000).Report of theNational Reading Panel─Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessmentof the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for readinginstruction.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (NIH PublicationNo. 00-4769).
National Joint Committee on LearningDisabilities [NJCLD]. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention andlearning disabilities.Available fromhttp://www.ldonline.org
National Joint Committee on LearningDisabilities [NJCLD]. (2006). SLD Determination and Responsiveness to Intervention manuals.Available fromhttp://www.nrcld.org/about/publications
Pyle, N., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Remediating reading difficulties in a response to intervention model with secondary students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 273-284.
Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(2), 63-69.
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., &Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 290-322.
Smith, S. W., Daunic, A. P., & Taylor, G. G. (2007). Treatment fidelity in applied educational research: Expanding the adoption and application of measures to ensure evidence-based practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 121-134.
Somers, M., Corrin, W., Sepanik, S., Salinger, T., Levin, J., & Zmach, C. (2010). The enhanced reading opportunities study final report: The impact of supplemental literacy courses for struggling ninth-grade readers.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying earlyreading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Different scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: It’s time to use a different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 65-83.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A

meta-analysis inintervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504−532.
Texas Education Agency (2004). TAKS: Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. Information booklet: Reading, grade 7-Revised. Retrieved December 19, 2007, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ student.assessment/taks/booklets/reading/g6e.pdf.
The IRIS Center. (n.d.a.). Approaches to RTI. Retrieved in January 8, 2012, from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/ rti01-overview/ cresource/ what-other-information-might-a-school-find-helpful-when- choosing-which- approach- to-adopt/ rti01_05/#content
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores.Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30,15-31.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C, & Barnett, D. A.(2005). The emergence and possible futures of responseto intervention.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,23,339-361.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson(2007).A multi-year

evaluation of the effects of a Responseto Intervention (RTI) model on identification ofchildren for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45,225–256.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003). The development and validation of a process forscreening and referrals to special education.School Psychology Review, 32,204−227.
Vaughn S, Cirino PT, Wanzek J, Wexler J, Fletcher JM, Denton CA, Barth, A., Romain, M., & Francis, D. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3–21.
Vaughn S, Wanzek J, Wexler J, Barth A, Cirino PT, Fletcher JM, & Francis, D. J. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(8), 931–956. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009- 9183-9
Vaughn S, Wexler J, Leroux A, Roberts G, Denton C, Barth A.E., & Fletcher, J. M.et al. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515-525.
Vaughn S, Wexler J, Roberts G, Barth AE, Cirino PT, Romain M, & Denton, C. A. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 391–407.

Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to Intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45 (3), 244-256.
Vaughn, S.,Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Cirino, P. T., Barth, A. E., Romain, M. A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18,338–345.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R.,& Chard, D. (2000). The underlying message in LD interventionresearch: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67,99−114.
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., Schumm J.S., & Klingner, J. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusion classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 57–74.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
Vaughn, S.R., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003).Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to treatment. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ--Achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223-238.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., &Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readilyremediate poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishingbetween cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific readingdisability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 661-638.
Williams, J. P. (2003). Teaching text structure to improvereading comprehension. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities(pp.293-305). New York: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. T. (2001). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Cirde Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.