Table 6.
Comparing RTI operationalizations employing the different response to instruction methods allowing measure and cut-point to vary
| Measure 1 | Measure 2 | Kappa | Agreement | IR M1 | IR M2 | Agreement IR | Agreement AR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dual discrepancy method | |||||||
| TOWREBOTH05 | CMERBOTH10 | 0.46 | 0.77 | .25 | .35 | 0.44 | 0.71 |
| TOWREBOTH10 | CMERBOTH15 | 0.50 | 0.88 | .10 | .18 | 0.39 | 0.87 |
| CMERBOTH15 | TOWREBOTH05 | 0.53 | 0.84 | .18 | .25 | 0.46 | 0.81 |
| Intercept method | |||||||
| CMERINT15 | TOWREINT10 | 0.41 | 0.79 | .20 | .25 | 0.37 | 0.76 |
| TOWREINT05 | CMERINT05 | 0.47 | 0.75 | .55 | .70 | 0.66 | 0.50 |
| Slope method | |||||||
| CMERSLOPE05 | TOWRESLOP05 | 0.40 | 0.69 | .54 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.57 |
| TOWRESLOPE10 | CMERSLOP10 | 0.43 | 0.76 | .20 | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.72 |
| CMERSLOPE15 | TOWRESLOP05 | 0.47 | 0.79 | .20 | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.75 |
| TOWRESLOPE05 | CMERSLOP10 | 0.49 | 0.77 | .33 | 0.36 | 0.50 | 0.70 |
| TOWRESLOPE10 | CMERSLOP15 | 0.51 | 0.85 | .20 | 0.20 | 0.44 | 0.82 |
Note. Growth measures included the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) composite and Continuous Monitoring of Early Reading Skills (CMERS). Growth methods included Intercept (INT), Slope (SLOPE), and Dual Discrepancy (BOTH). Growth cut-points included .5 (05), 1.0 (10), and 1.5 (15) standard deviations below the mean of typically developing control group. IR M1 represents the proportion of students identified as inadequate responders (IR) for Measure 1 (M1). IR M2 represents the proportion of students identified as inadequate responders (IR) for Measure 2 (M2). Agreement IR represents the proportion of students identified as inadequate responder on Measure 1 and Measure 2. Agreement AR represents the proportion of students identified as adequate responder on Measure 1 and Measure 2.