A Meta-Analysis of the RTI Literature for Children at Risk for Reading Disabilities

This article synthesizes the literature comparing at-risk children designated as responders and low responders to interventions in reading. The central question addressed in this review is whether individual differences in reading-related skills at pretest predict responders at posttest across a variety of interventions and sets of criteria for determining responding and low responding. A total of 13 studies met criteria for the meta-analysis, yielding 107 weighted effect sizes (ESs) at posttest (M = .76, SE = .03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .71, .81) and 108 weighted ESs at pretest (M = 1.02, SE = .03, CI = 1.02, 1.13). The results showed that the magnitude of ES between responders and low responders increased from pretest to posttest on measures of reading (e.g., real word identification = 1.06 vs. 1.53, word attack = 1.10 vs. 1.28, and passage comprehension, 0.45 vs. 1.43). Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that overall posttest ESs were significantly moderated by pretest scores as well as the type of measure administered, whereas no significant moderating effects were found for number of weeks of intervention, length of sessions, number of sessions, type of intervention (one-to-one vs. small group instruction), and criteria for defining responders (cutoff, scores, discrepancy, benchmark). Overall, the synthesis suggested that regardless of type of treatment and identification criteria, response-to-intervention (RTI) conditions were not effective in mitigating learner characteristics related to pretest conditions.