Testing and Progress
This week, you read about changes over time in the procedures for evaluating SLDs. Recently, most states changed their existing rules and regulations to include an RTI model, which identifies three levels of intervention or teaching to facilitate learning for all students. Subsequently, it became important to determine tests or assessments, which would provide monitoring or progress within each level of instructional intervention. However, this model for teaching has now been utilized as a method for identifying students as having a learning disability.
You were also introduced to a number of diagnostic measures for monitoring progress, which included nationally standardized tests alongside locally normed standardized measurement procedures called CBM. In addition, the authors of your Psychological Testing and Assessment text presented several questions and concerns regarding the use of diagnostic tests when working with individuals suspected of having learning disabilities.
Based on this week’s readings, complete the following for this discussion:
Outline the concerns that may exist with using an RTI model when identifying students suspected as having a learning disability.
Identify some of the limitations or concerns that may result from using diagnostic tests (both nationally standardized and CBM) when working with all students, as well as students who may have a learning disability.
Identify some of the strengths in using these tests or measurements for progress monitoring.
Summarize this information and present a recommendation for the use of the RTI model, nationally standardized diagnostic tests, locally normed CBM, and intelligence and academic achievement tests, and their role in monitoring educational progress and identification of a learning disability
Also if you can please respond to Rizaldy in a SEPERATE PARAGRAPH please thank you
Response to Intervention (RTI) is an approach used in education to identify and provide support to students who are struggling academically. It involves a multi-tiered system of support that uses data to monitor student progress and to make decisions about instructional interventions (Cohen, 2021). While the use of RTI has many benefits, there are also concerns related to its use in identifying students suspected of having a learning disability.
One concern is that RTI is often used as a way to delay or avoid a formal evaluation for special education services. This can be problematic because some students may need more intensive or individualized support than can be provided through general education interventions. Another concern is that the RTI process can be time-consuming and may result in students falling further behind while waiting for interventions to take effect.
In terms of diagnostic tests, both nationally standardized tests and Curriculum-Based Measures (CBM) have limitations when used with all students and particularly with students suspected of having a learning disability. Standardized tests may not accurately reflect a student’s abilities, as they are often based on a narrow range of skills and knowledge. CBM tests may be more useful for measuring progress over time, but they are not always sensitive enough to detect subtle changes in student performance or to identify specific learning disabilities.
However, both nationally standardized tests and CBM tests have strengths when used for progress monitoring. Nationally standardized tests provide a benchmark for comparing a student’s performance to that of a larger group, and CBM tests can be administered frequently to track progress over time. Intelligence and academic achievement tests can also be useful in identifying learning disabilities and providing a more detailed understanding of a student’s strengths and weaknesses.
It is recommended that the RTI model be used as a first step in identifying students who may be at risk for learning disabilities. However, it is important that the RTI process is not used to delay or avoid a formal evaluation for special education services. Diagnostic tests such as nationally standardized tests, locally normed CBM, and intelligence and academic achievement tests can be useful for progress monitoring, but they should not be the sole basis for identifying a learning disability. A comprehensive evaluation that includes a variety of measures and input from parents, teachers, and other professionals is necessary for accurate identification and appropriate support for students with learning disabilities.
