Chapter 6 Response to Intervention (RtI) and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

James M. Kauffman; Andrew Bruce; John Wills Lloyd

doi:10.1108/S0270-4013(2012)0000023009

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Advances in Special Education

ISSN: 0270-4013
Series editor(s): Dr Anthony Rotatori

Subject Area: Education

Content: Series Volumes | Current Volume RSS

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Document request:
Chapter 6 Response to Intervention (RtI) and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Document Information:
Title:	Chapter 6 Response to Intervention (RtI) and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Author(s):	James M. Kauffman, Andrew Bruce, John Wills Lloyd
Volume:	23 Editor(s): Jeffrey P. Bakken, Festus E. Obiakor, Anthony F. Rotatori ISBN: 978-1-78052-506-8 eISBN: 978-1-78052-507-5
Citation:	James M. Kauffman, Andrew Bruce, John Wills Lloyd (2012), Chapter 6 Response to Intervention (RtI) and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, in Jeffrey P. Bakken, Festus E. Obiakor, Anthony F. Rotatori (ed.) Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with EBD (Advances in Special Education, Volume 23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.107-128
DOI:	10.1108/S0270-4013(2012)0000023009 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article type:	Chapter Item
Abstract:	We review the concept of response to intervention (RtI) as it is being applied to emotional and behavioral disorders (EDB) in the early part of the 21st century, examining how it differs from and incorporates features of other approaches to addressing those problems, including pre-referral interventions, applied behavior analysis, functional behavioral assessment, curriculum-based measurement, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and special education. After discussing alternative concepts about how RtI might be applied to students with EBD, we note that our search of the literature revealed very few studies examining the application of RtI with students having EBD. We found both substantive and methodological problems in the studies we reviewed. For example, researchers did not describe adequately how students were selected for tiers, what dependent measures were chosen and why, what independent variables were manipulated, what criteria led to moving a child to a different tier, and how RtI addressed (or failed to address) the need for special education services. We conclude that, although some of the components of RtI have solid evidentiary bases, little evidence supports common claims of the benefits of RtI, especially as applied to students with EBD.