Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The critical role of instructional response in defining and identifying students with dyslexia: a case for updating existing definitions

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We address defining and identifying students with dyslexia within the context of multi-tier systems of support (MTSS). We review proposed definitions of dyslexia, evidence for proposed definitional attributes, and emphasize the role of instructional response in identifying students with dyslexia. We identify dyslexia as individuals with specific deficits in reading and spelling single words combined with inadequate response to evidence-based instruction. We propose a hybrid identification process in which assessment is utilized within school-wide MTSS allowing for integration of routinely collected progress monitoring data as well integrating with more formal diagnostic measures. This proposed “hybrid” method demonstrates strong evidence for valid decision-making and directly informs instruction. We close proposing a revised definition of dyslexia that incorporates these elements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

  • Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barquero, L. A., Davis, N., & Cutting, L. E. (2014). Neuroimaging of reading intervention: A systematic review and activation likelihood estimate meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9, e83668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Dyslexia Association. (2007). Definition of dyslexia. http://www.actiondyslexia.co.uk/view-article/Defining-Dyslexia

  • Brown Waesche, J. S., Schatschneider, C., Maner, J. K., Ahmed, Y., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Examining agreement and longitudinal stability of reading disability using the affected- status agreement index. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43(5), 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., & Petscher, Y. (2022). A cumulative risk and resilience model of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(3), 171–184

  • Cassidy B. (2019a). Cassidy criticizes academic integrity of NCIL dyslexia report created with department of education funds. https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cassidy-criticizes-academic-integrityof-ncil-report-created-with-department-of-education-funds

  • Cassidy B. (2019b). Cassidy urges full implementation of First Step Act dyslexia screening. https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cassidy-urges-full-implementation-of-first-step-actdyslexia-screening

  • Castles, A., Holmes, V. M., Neath, J., & Kinoshita, S. (2003). How does orthographic knowledge influence performance on phonological awareness tasks? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A(3), 445–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, M. D., Oldham, A., Dougherty, S. M., Leonard, K., Koriakin, T., Gage, N. A., ... & Gillis, M. (2018). Evaluating the effects of supplemental reading intervention within an MTSS or RTI reading reform initiative using a regression discontinuity design. Exceptional Children, 84(4), 350–367.

  • Critchley, M. (1970). The dyslexic child. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2024). The dyslexia debate- Revisited New York. NY: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fien, H., Smith, J., Smolkowksi, K., Baker, S. K., Nelson, N. J., & Chaparro, E. (2014). An examination of the efficacy of a multi-tiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(6), 602–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 807–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32, 2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2024). Assessment of specific learning disabilities and intellectual disabilities. Assessment, 31(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Denton, C. A., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2011). Cognitive correlates of inadequate response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 40, 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Miciak, J., Francis, D. J., & Denton, C. A. (2014). Agreement and coverage of indicators of response to intervention: A multi-method comparison and simulation. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J..., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016–4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

  • Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Critique of the National Evaluation of Responsiveness-To-Intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83, 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorenko, E. L., Compton, D., Fuchs, L., Wagner, R., Willcutt, E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75, 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., ... & Dumont, R. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223–236.

  • Hall, M. S., & Burns, M. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66, 54–66.

  • Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–466. Federal register, Vol. 70, No. 118.

  • Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. (2006). Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI): How to Do It.[RTI Manual]. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.

  • Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2013). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 448–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFever, G. B. (2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(3), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller-Margulis, M. A. (2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 342–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, S. A. (1963). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities. Conference on Exploring Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child, 1, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. L. (1996). Speech: A special code. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmann, G. M., Barnett, D. W., Lombard, T. J., Belton-Kocher, E., & Sharpe, M. N. (1989). On the actuarial classification of children: Fundamental studies of classification agreement. The Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). An evaluation of two reading interventions derived from diverse models. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGill, R. J., Styck, K. M., Palomares, R. S., & Hass, M. R. (2016). Critical issues in specific learning disability identification: What we need to know about the PSW model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2021). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Vaughn, S., & Tolar, T. D. (2014a). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Stuebing, K. K., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Barth, A. E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2014b). Cognitive attributes of adequate and inadequate responders to reading intervention in middle school. School Psychology Review, 43, 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Williams, J. L., Taylor, W. P., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2016). Do processing patterns of strengths and weaknesses predict differential treatment response? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 898–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, B. F., Santerre-Lemmon, L., Rosenberg, J., MacDonald, B., Boada, R., Friend, A., Leopold, D. R., Samuelsson, S., Byrne, B., Willcutt, E. G., & Olson, R. K. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 212–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrill, S. A., Deater-Deckard, K., Thompson, L. A., DeThorne, L. S., & Schatschneider, C. (2006). Reading skills in early readers: Genetic and shared environmental influences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petscher, Y., Fien, H., Stanley, C., Gearin, B., Gaab, N., Fletcher, J.M., & Johnson, E. (2019). Screening for dyslexia. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. improvingliteracy.org

  • Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to Intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. Accessed at http://www.thedyslexia-spldtrust.org.uk/media/downloads/inline/the-rose-report.1294933674.pdf

  • Scarborough, H. S., Ehri, L. C., Olson, R. K., & Fowler, A. E. (1998). The fate of phonemic awareness beyond the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R. K., & Crawford, E. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 308–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many cannot, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. L. M., Nelson, N. J., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Kosty, D. (2016). Examining the efficacy of a multitiered intervention for at-risk readers in grade 1. Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonnessen, F. E. (1997). How can we best define ‘dyslexia’? Dyslexia, 3, 78–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565–650). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of learning disabilities, 49(1), 77–96.

  • VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Leroux, A., Roberts, G., Denton, C., Barth, A., & Fletcher, J. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515–525.

  • Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waesche, J. S. B., Schatschneider, C., Maner, J. K., Ahmed, Y., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Examining agreement and longitudinal stability among traditional and response-to-intervention-based definitions of reading disability using the affected-status agreement statistic. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Francis, D. J., & Morris, R. D. (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 126–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by grant P50 HD052117 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and by grants R324A230138 and R324A200209 from the National Center for Special Education Research in the Institute of Education Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Special Education Research, or the Institute of Education Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Sharon Vaughn & Nathan Clemens

  2. Department of Psychology, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics (TIMES), The University of Houston, 4849 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Ste. 373, Houston, TX, USA

    Jeremy Miciak & Jack M. Fletcher

Authors
  1. Sharon Vaughn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Miciak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathan Clemens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jack M. Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Miciak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaughn, S., Miciak, J., Clemens, N. et al. The critical role of instructional response in defining and identifying students with dyslexia: a case for updating existing definitions. Ann. of Dyslexia (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-024-00303-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-024-00303-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation