In the fourth session of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium in 2003, Good, Vellutino, and Torgesen presented papers that addressed the question, "How should unresponsiveness to secondary intervention be operationalized in an RTI approach to LD identification?" In this commentary, I highlight important areas in which ideas converge across the three presentations. I argue that it will be important, as the field begins to grapple with a definition of "unresponsiveness" to secondary intervention, that we also specify who should get the intervention, what the intervention should consist of, when the intervention should occur, how long the intervention should last, and by whom the intervention should be applied. Only then can we accurately assess the merits of competing definitions of unresponsiveness.
Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research
Choose a citation style from the tabs below