TUTOR BILL ONLY

Journal of Early Intervention 2015, Vol. 36(4) 246 –262

© 2015 SAGE Publications Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1053815115581209

jei.sagepub.com

Article

The Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood: Developing Evidence-Based Tools for a Multi-Tier Approach to Preschool Language and Early Literacy Instruction

Charles R. Greenwood1, Judith J. Carta1, Howard Goldstein2, Ruth A. Kaminski3, Scott R. McConnell4, and Jane Atwater1

Abstract The prevalence of struggling readers by third grade nationwide is estimated at one in three. Reports trace the roots of this problem to early childhood and the opportunity to learn language and early literacy skills at home and in preschool. Reports also indicate that one-size-fits-all preschool language and literacy instruction is beneficial for only some children. The Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (CRTIEC) was funded by the National Center for Special Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to conceptualize and develop evidence-based assessment and curricular tools that early education programs could include in their plans for teaching language and literacy skills using a multi-tier system of supports (MTSS) or response to intervention (RTI) approach. CRTIEC also was directed to provide leadership in disseminating information about progress in applying MTSS approaches to instruction in early childhood. The articles in this issue summarize the work of the Center through descriptions of the process of developing and validating tools needed for an MTSS approach and summaries of the research completed by the Center.

Keywords preschool, response to intervention, multi-tier system of supports, language, literacy

Introduction Reading is a keystone skill leading to future success in our society. Unfortunately, more than one in three children are struggling readers. Forty percent of U.S. fourth graders fail to reach the

1University of Kansas, Kansas City, USA 2University of South Florida, Tampa, USA 3Dynamic Measurement Group, Eugene, OR, USA 4University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Corresponding Author: Charles R. Greenwood, Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas, 444 Minnesota Avenue, Suite 300, Kansas City, KS 66101-2914, USA. Email: greenwood@ku.edu

581209 JEIXXX10.1177/1053815115581209Journal of Early InterventionGreenwood et al. research-article2015

Greenwood et al. 247

“basic” reading level (Aud et al., 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Children who display poor reading skills in first grade have more than a 90% chance of continuing poor reading skills (Chard & Kameenui, 2000). This shortfall in reading proficiency is especially pronounced among low-income children: 83% of children from low-income families and 85% of low-income students attending high-poverty schools fail to reach “proficient” levels.

We know that the roots of early literacy development extend into early childhood, involving language development and preliteracy experiences (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Language and early literacy are the symbolic systems children use to learn to understand and operate in their physical, social, and conceptual worlds (Harwood, Miller, & Irizarry, 1995) and to begin translation of this knowledge to the phonemic system needed to learn to read.

Children enter preschool with wide variability in their language and emergent literacy skills (Ehri & Nunes, 2002; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Many of these children are not ready for kindergarten, because they have not experienced the necessary language and early literacy experiences in the home (Hart & Risley, 1995; Snow et al., 1998; Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). These chil- dren are at risk of not achieving expected language and literacy outcomes in preschool (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Zill & Resnick, 2006), face significant challenges learning to read (Torgesen, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998, 2001), and are likely to become struggling readers (Chard & Kameenui, 2000) on the way to needing special education services for read- ing disabilities (Marston, 2005). Unfortunately, at-risk children do not easily close gaps with exposure to preschool (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2013; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000), even after years of focus on improving preschool instructional quality (e.g., Justice, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008).

Reports indicate that typical levels of instructional support provided by preschool teachers are low on average, intentional teaching of language and literacy occurs infrequently, and children’s engagement in literacy behaviors is likewise limited (see Carta et al., 2015). The research, policy, and practice efforts to improve the effectiveness of preschool instruction have been extensive, including reports of the low quality of preschool instruction (Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta, & Mashburn, 2010; Early et al., 2005; Justice et al., 2008; Pianta et al., 2005) as well as investments in large-scale curriculum trials such as the Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium (PCERC 2008) and the National Reading First Initiative (Jackson et al., 2007; Russell et al., 2007).

PCERC was a consortium of randomized control-trial (RCT) comparisons of 14 promising language and early literacy curricula. Only 2 of the 14 intervention curricula investigated in PCERC showed differential effects on student-level outcomes for the pre-kindergarten year. The National Reading First Initiative supported preschool programs’ implementation of professional development for teachers centered on the use of scientifically based reading research, materials, and procedures. Results indicated that professional development led to significant impacts on teachers’ classroom practices and on children’s print and letter knowledge outcomes. However, neither phonological awareness nor oral language improved. Very few of these large-scale efforts were designed to differentiate the instruction provided to children with weaker skills, however.

Such results provided an impetus for what has come to be called a multi-tier system of sup- ports (MTSS), which seeks to differentiate levels of instructional support provided to students based on their demonstrated needs (Gersten et al., 2009). The typical MTSS is divided into three tiers of instructional support. Tier 1 is whole-class instruction, utilizing a high-quality general curriculum. Tier 2 typically provides supplemental instruction often in small groups to help chil- dren with delays overcome specific learning gaps. Tier 3 is more intensive, often individualized intervention, for those with significant learning needs.

248 Journal of Early Intervention 36(4)

Researchers have reported that providing supplemental Tier 2 and Tier 3 language and lit- eracy interventions helps these children make progress they would not have otherwise. For example, the Early Reading First program of Gettinger and Stoiber (2007) provided supple- mental instruction to preschool children with weak (Tier 2) and very weak (Tier 3) skills in the context of an MTSS model. The Tier 1 curriculum was experienced by all children, explicit supplemental Tier 2 instruction was taught in teacher-directed small groups, and Tier 3 instruc- tion consisted of individual tutoring provided by graduate students and volunteers. Lower- performing children made significant progress improving their language and literacy skills. Other investigators have reported similar findings for other forms of supplemental instruction (Landry, Assel, Anthony, & Swank, 2013; Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, & Coyne, 2010; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007). Reports also indicate that for young children with weak skills, the most effective supplementary instruction is likely to be intensive and explicit. In the vocabulary domain, children learn more words, and more about those words, when teaching is explicit. Explicit instruction is structured with scaffolding and opportunities to respond, as compared with implicit instruction, which entails passive exposure (Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007; Pullen & Justice, 2003; Pullen et al., 2010). Explicit instruction provided in repeated readings across multiple days provides an advantage for vocabulary learning relative to brief or single exposures (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002).

Given the needs of many children entering preschool, the field continues to seek more effec- tive ways to improve all children’s school readiness outcomes. We know that the instructional support and teacher literacy focus that children receive in preschool is often too low and that many teachers have yet to adopt an intentional teaching approach. In addition, we know chil- dren respond differentially based on the quantity and quality of instruction they receive, and for too many children, they are not making the progress they could be making. Supplemental and individualized forms of instructions appear beneficial, particularly for children with weaker skills. How can we efficiently and systematically integrate these more intensive levels of sup- port with general, core instruction to become more effective in preparing children for kindergar- ten and for learning to read? Preschool programs that are not using a curriculum or one that is only “one-size-fits-all” need to ask whether their approach is sufficiently intensive for all chil- dren served.

The purpose of this article is (a) to provide the rationale for an approach meant to meet the needs of all children by integrating MTSS in the teaching of language and early literacy, and (b) to describe the scope of work of the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (CRTIEC), which was designed to develop and validate tools for such an approach. We also preview the individual reports that follow and that describe this work in detail. Our intention is to cite CRTIEC’s completed work and report new findings not yet published, while some work of CRTIEC remains in progress. To avoid redundancy, we have striven to not reiterate findings already in the literature. In this discussion, we use terms that some may find new or in need of clarification; these are defined in Table 1.

Providing Supplemental and Individualized Supports to Preschoolers Likely to Benefit From More Than Core Language and Literacy Instruction MTSS is an early intervening, dynamic approach to providing services based on the observation that children learn at their own pace and that some children learn best when taught with more explicit, intensive forms of instruction than needed by others (Gersten et al., 2009). The MTSS approach follows the precept that future instruction should be adapted based on the learner’s

Greenwood et al. 249

measurable success or failure in learning what is being taught (L. S. Fuchs & Deno, 1991). Thus, the approach is intended to be highly responsive to each child’s learning success or difficulty.

The approach stems from concepts in prevention science that offer means of differentiating treatment with potentially broad value by providing adaptive interventions or MTSS for all indi- viduals depending on their level of risk. This logic broadens the scope of prevention to the entire population of preschool children, not just those at-risk subpopulations experiencing poverty, dis- abilities, or developmental delays. Furthermore, these supports are not the same as or dependent on special education eligibility.

In MTSS, the goal is to differentiate instruction for children who are not making adequate progress in the core skill domains of interest. MTSS models often cross more than just language

Table 1. Glossary of Terms.

Term Brief definition

Adapted interventions

Interventions that are designed to vary in dose, intensity, and procedures to fit learners with different performance needs in an RTI or MTSS framework

Differentiation Design of instructional option providing different paths to personalizing learning to fit a child’s particular needs and strengths

Embedded instruction

Language and literacy instruction provided within authentic contexts of early childhood (e.g., dressing, play, center time)

Explicit instruction Instruction that is carefully designed and structured to provide the supports necessary for student learning of specific skills

Evidence-based Having a basis in empirical evidence such that one or more are true: (a) Superior student outcomes have been obtained using the practice compared with one or more alternatives, (b) the skills taught are precursors or predictors of future success learning to read, and (c) use of the practice is guided by objective data on child performance

Instructional intensity Dosage, in education, often refers to more time allocated to learn but also refers to instruction with greater explicitness, more opportunities to respond during lessons, teaching in small groups or one-on-one contexts, more corrective feedback

Multi-tier system of supports (MTSS)

A dynamic system of two or more adapted interventions (e.g., Tiers 1, 2, 3) for use with children based on rules linked to assessed performance indicating benefit from an adapted experience

Response to intervention (RTI)

An approach to (a) determining risk of not learning language and early literacy skills (e.g., by kindergarten) based on a child’s response to intervention (e.g., Tier 1 instruction), and (b) providing adapted interventions to reduce that risk; Part a of this definition has been used by some in education as an eligibility indicator for special education, and Part b refers to the MTSS aspect

Tier An intervention option within an MTSS or RTI program Universal (primary),

Tier 1 Children at the lowest risk of failing to learn language and literacy while

experiencing the general, core instruction planned for all children; children for whom this tier is appropriate are showing performance that is at or above benchmark

Selected (secondary), Tier 2

Children at moderate risk because of weak skills and who may not be likely to achieve expected benchmarks for language and literacy by kindergarten without more intensive instruction

Indicated (tertiary), Tier 3

Refers to children at the highest risk with very weak skills who are not predicted to meet expected benchmarks by kindergarten without more intensive instruction

250 Journal of Early Intervention 36(4)

and early literacy, including social–emotional outcomes, for example. In MTSS, as soon as it is known that a child is not reaching benchmarks or adequate rates of progress in the curriculum, a higher tier of instruction is provided. MTSS is a system for implementing instruction that is adapted or differentiated based on assessed need.

Adaptive Interventions in Public Health The approach has its roots in public and mental health models that propose an intervention spec- trum that includes universal, selective, and indicated prevention (Frieden, 2010; O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009). Universal prevention efforts, such as national public health campaigns, are targeted to the general public or a whole population that has not been identified on the basis of individual risk. Selective prevention targets a population subgroup whose risk of developing a disorder or a disease is higher than average. For example, selective prevention programs might be offered to children exposed to risk factors, such as parental mental illness, substance abuse, or domestic violence, to reduce risk of adverse socio-emotional or behavioral outcomes. Indicated prevention efforts are targeted to highest risk individuals who are identified as having detectable signs indicating predisposition or symptoms of a disorder or disease. For example, indicated prevention may be provided to patients with diseases that mitigate adverse effects, prolong life, and reduce costs (Merrell & Buchanan, 2006). Likewise, an indicated prevention program may target children with elevated levels of aggression or very weak language skills.

Adaptive Interventions in Education The adaptive intervention approach in education moves away from the traditional educational model of waiting for students to qualify for special education before serving them. Instead, the MTSS approach intervenes immediately to prevent (a) depriving children of opportunities to learn, (b) children experiencing mounting sets of related challenges, and (c) allowing develop- mental delays to become disabilities (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). This approach has been readily increasing in application in recent years (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). Proponents cite multiple benefits, including (a) earlier intervention for students at risk of lan- guage and literacy failure, (b) fewer inappropriate referrals to special education, (c) less over- identification of children from minority groups into special education, and (d) greater ongoing collaboration between general and special education (Bocala, Mello, Reedy, & Lacireno-Paquet, 2009; Greenwood et al., 2011).

The typical working components of MTSS include (a) universal screening to identify those children in a program not meeting expected benchmarks as well as (b) multiple tiers of evidence- based instructional supports that are implemented with fidelity linked to a (c) decision-making framework so that children identified with weak and very weak skills will receive more intensive instructional support in a timely fashion, and (d) more frequent measurement used to track prog- ress of children for whom additional intervention is being provided. In most MTSS models, all identified children continue receiving Tier 1 services, but additionally receive an extra tier of intervention needed to accelerate their progress.

Use in K-12 Education and Evidence of Efficacy MTSS is better known as response to intervention (RTI) in the K-12 literature. The two proto- cols for intervention determination commonly described in the education literature are the stan- dard and progress monitoring protocols (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). The standard protocol approach seeks to use standard interventions that are fully developed, tested, and ready for use by teachers seeking to improve student outcome. Evidence-based,

Greenwood et al. 251

standard RTI interventions may be selected for use by programs because they address a concern and outcome of importance to most of the children in the school and because staff can be pre- taught, and with experience use them with fidelity. Because standard interventions are used throughout a school, the interventions are available to students as soon as it is determined that they would benefit from receiving them, and the interventions can be maintained in place as long as students need them. A disadvantage of standard RTI interventions, of course, is that most but not all students will respond positively to the standard intervention, and others may need a different type of instruction.

When applying a progress monitoring RTI protocol to intervention selection, interventions are selected on an individualized basis because of demonstrated need and response to prior instruc- tion. The progress monitoring RTI protocol is much more dependent on skilled professional staff members who are knowledgeable and able to select particular interventions that best fit the con- cerns and needs of children and where necessary, teach other staff how to use them. This RTI protocol is more likely to be used by staff highly experienced in using the approach. The two approaches are not necessarily meant to be mutually exclusive and may work well as a hybrid.

A number of reports have indicated that superior student outcomes follow school-wide use of RTI compared with “business as usual.” For example, a meta-analysis of 24 controlled studies of RTI used in elementary schools reported larger positive effects at the student and school levels of analysis for growth in academic skills, time on task, and task completion (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005).

Use in Early Childhood and Evidence of Efficacy Interest in MTSS in early childhood is increasing (Greenwood et al., 2011; Division for Early Childhood, National Association for the Education of Young Children, and National Head Start Association, 2013), particularly as states and program policies have called for accountability for children’s results (ECO [Early Childhood Outcomes] Center, 2011) and the use of children’s data for individualizing services and making program intervention decisions (Office of Head Start, 2012). Early reports in the literature have envisioned a role for MTSS in preschool (Barnett, VanDerHeyden, & Witt, 2007; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Barnett, 2005), anticipated the measure- ment that would be needed to implement it (McConnell & Missall, 2008; Missall, Carta, McConnell, Walker, & Greenwood, 2008; Snyder, Wixson, Talapatra, & Roach, 2008; VanDerHeyden & Snyder, 2006), and advocated MTSS for improving reading outcomes (Justice, 2006).

Several early childhood MTSS models have been developed and are increasingly used. For example, Recognition and Response is a three-tier model for public pre-K, child care, Head Start, and preschool instruction providing differential instruction to 3- to 5-year-old children based on assessed need (Buysse & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010). Guiding MTSS principles in the model are recognizing children who are not making progress prior to referral, helping teachers support chil- dren’s academic learning as well as their social–emotional development, and linking RTI and early childhood programming prior to kindergarten with existing programming for school-aged chil- dren. Four MTSS components are involved: (a) screening, assessment, and progress monitoring (Recognition), (b) research-based curriculum and instruction for all children and validated inter- ventions for individual children who need additional supports (Response), (c) an intervention hierarchy, and (d) a collaborative problem-solving process that involves teachers, specialists, and parents working together. Several efficacy studies are in progress (Buysse et al., 2013).

An MTSS for promoting children’s social–emotional development and preventing behavior problems is the Teaching Pyramid, which is a product of the Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention for Young Children (TACSEI; Fox, Carta, Strain, Dunlap, & Hemmeter, 2009, 2010). The Pyramid model describes tiers of intervention practice: universal promotion for all children, selective preventions to address the intervention needs of children at

252 Journal of Early Intervention 36(4)

risk of social–emotional delays, and indicated interventions needed for children with persistent challenges. It provides guidance for MTSS implementation with infants, toddlers, and preschool- ers, and includes interventions needed to support children who are typically developing and who have or are at risk of developmental delays or disabilities (Hunter & Hemmeter, 2009). Reports on the efficacy of the Pyramid model are not yet available. Both models provide early childhood with strong MTSS frameworks needed for creating local program implementations. Reports of the efficacy of preschool MTSS teaching language and early literacy skills are emerging, demon- strating the benefit of a Tier 2 supplemental intervention (Bailet, Kepper, Piasta, & Murphy, 2009; see also Kaminski, Powell-Smith, Hommel, McMahon, & Aguayo, 2015; Kelley & Goldstein, 2015) and a full three-tier model (Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007, 2012).

Although the promise and concept of MTSS in early childhood seem bright, the readiness of the field to implement MTSS in language and literacy instruction at scale awaits further research and development to generate the tools, infrastructure, and professional development needed. For example, top challenges reported by State Part B Directors in 2009/2010 MTSS implementation in rank order were lack of trained personnel, resources, Tier 2 and 3 interventions, knowledge of MTSS, evidence-based Tier 1 curricula, and administrative support (Greenwood et al., 2011).

These challenges remind us that having a preschool MTSS model based on prevention theory and principles that govern how the adaptive services will be provided to individual children is one thing. However, having the necessary MTSS practices, those evidence-based tools needed to successfully implement the model with trained teachers in classrooms and programs, is another. Other needed practices and resources not mentioned above are measures, benchmarks, and cut- point procedures for deciding when a child will benefit from changing to an adapted intervention (Tiers 2 and 3). We now turn to a discussion of CRTIEC and its efforts to promote an MTSS approach to language and early literacy in early childhood education settings.

CRTIEC and Scope of Work

Background/Mission In 2007, the National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) released a Request for Applications (RFA) for a Research and Development Center to vali- date strategies and tools needed to support an MTSS/RTI approach to the instruction of preschool language and early literacy skills. Requested in the RFA was a broad range of related activities and goals (National Center for Special Education Research, 2007):

1. A focused program of research devoted to developing tools needed in an MTSS approach including an integrated measurement system for universal screening and progress moni- toring and Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions.

2. Supplemental research proposed by the applicant and cooperatively agreed to by the IES.

a. We completed two supplemental activities. The first was a multi-site, descriptive study of preschool language and literacy instruction using an RTI measurement approach to examine the distribution of children in three tiers of literacy risk and their progress over a year in non-MTSS preschools.

b. We conducted an annual state-level survey of preschool directors regarding their knowledge and progress implementing MTSS programs in their states to measure progress in the uptake of MTSS during the life of the Center.

3. A program designed to promote leadership and outreach in preschool MTSS among researchers, practitioners, and policy makers.

4. Production of related products, presentations, and peer-reviewed reports of study findings to be widely disseminated.

Greenwood et al. 253

The CRTIEC (n.d.) was competitively funded by the IES in 2008 to conduct this scope of work. The mission of CRTIEC was to develop a set of assessment and intervention tools and practices needed to implement an MTSS model focusing on language and literacy skills. The mission was not to evaluate a working MTSS model, but rather to lay the foundation for future research on such a full model using the tools and practices to be developed. Consistent with the RFA, the long-term goal of CRTIEC was to improve the kindergarten readiness of preschool children through an MTSS approach.

Center’s organization. The Center’s organization reflected the research and development desired by the RFA including leadership, outreach, and dissemination activities (see Figure 1). The work was supported by two internal core services: research administration and research design and analysis. CRTIEC was directed by a scientific advisory committee composed of the four collabo- rating principal investigators (PIs) in what grew to be five partner sites. Externally, the Center was advised by a small group of consulting scientists and by professional organizations including Division of Early Childhood, Head Start, and National Association for the Education of Young Children.

CRTIEC’s collaborating partners included Charles R. Greenwood and Judith J. Carta at the University of Kansas (the lead institution), Howard Goldstein at the Ohio State University and subsequently the University of South Florida, Ruth A. Kaminski at Dynamic Measurement Group in Eugene, Oregon, and Scott R. McConnell at the University of Minnesota. Research teams were established, and local preschool programs were engaged in the Center’s work at each site.

Conceptual basis. We adopted the MTSS conceptual framework described previously, and it guided our work developing and validating needed tools. At the outset, we decided to differentiate the

Figure 1. CRTIEC’s organization schema. Note. CRTIEC = Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood.

254 Journal of Early Intervention 36(4)

tiered interventions based on (a) the performance of children served, (b) measurement used for screening and progress monitoring, (c) a decision-making framework, and (d) differentiated inter- vention practices. We conceptualized an MTSS model with tiers of support applied dynamically based on children’s observed performance, either moving from greater to lesser intensive levels (e.g., moving from Tiers 3 to 2, and Tiers 2 to 1) and when there was a lack of progress, moving to more intensive tiers (from Tiers 1 to 2, and Tiers 2 to 3). We also decided that the benefits of using standard intervention protocols would far outweigh the alternative problem-solving approach, because the standard intervention protocols could be more efficiently put into practice and sustained over the long run given the current preschool classroom context and the newness of preschool MTSS. These practices could be used in new MTSS models being developed by states or in existing models (e.g., Recognition and Response).

Language and early literacy content. The common domain targets for both measurement and inter- vention development were oral language and literacy. CRTIEC’s research team worked to frame a common understanding of the language and early literacy content that would be addressed within the Center’s program of research and development. The groups of researchers responsible for developing the intervention procedures and the measurement procedures worked coopera- tively to identify skill domains supported by evidence that they were precursors of later reading success (IES, n.d.; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). The widely agreed upon domains were oral language and comprehension, phonological analysis, and alphabet knowledge.

•• Oral Language and Comprehension: The ability to produce or comprehend spoken lan- guage, including vocabulary and grammar.

•• Phonological Awareness: The ability to detect, manipulate, or analyze the auditory aspects of spoken language (including the ability to distinguish or segment words, syllables, or phonemes), independent of meaning.

•• Alphabet Knowledge: Knowledge of the names and sounds associated with printed letters.

These constructs guided initial development of assessment as well as the Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions (see Kaminski et al., 2015; Kelley & Goldstein, 2015; McConnell, Wackerle- Hollman, Roloff, & Rodriguez, 2015). As our development efforts gained traction, early-stage measures and interventions were used together in early pilot testing to discern similarities or differences in what was to be assessed and what was to be taught. Some variations in alignment and skill definitions emerged as these efforts continued. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 early literacy cur- ricula both targeted phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. However, the skills targeted in Tier 2 and Tier 3 curricula differed; the Tier 2 language curricula focused on more challenging, academic vocabulary and inferential questions, whereas the Tier 3 language curriculum focused on more basic, core vocabulary and elaborating utterances. We realize that the lack of consistent alignment among the Tier 2 and Tier 3 curricula and the assessments that were developed will affect the overall utility of the full assessment and intervention MTSS model. Nevertheless, we believe that this coordinated research, development, evaluation, and refinement process has pro- duced a largely complementary framework for measurement and intervention compatible with the goals of an early childhood MTSS model.

Study designs. The IES Research Goal framework was used to guide the CRTIEC research and development efforts (National Center for Special Education Research, 2014). IES Goal 5 Mea- surement criteria were used for planning and mapping progress in developing and improving new assessments that served to establish a measurement system capable of supporting MTSS decision making.

Greenwood et al. 255

Center PIs sought to develop an overarching assessment calendar of seasonal universal screen- ing (fall, midyear, spring) with links to more frequent progress monitoring for children receiving higher tiers of support. The CRTIEC measurement research focused on developing oral language and early literacy Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs) and benchmarks needed for making decisions about children’s needs for tiers of instruction, which were informed by a series of validation studies (see Table 2). One goal of this work was to overcome shortcom- ings in IGDIs 1.0 by making improvement in IGDIs 2.0. A Rasch-based Item-Response Theory approach was used to develop and test item banks, create ability scales, test screening classifica- tion accuracy, and test sensitivity to progress over time (see McConnell et al., 2015).

To generate baseline knowledge of a three-tier MTSS measurement approach, we conducted a multi-site study of the growth children made in language and early literacy skills when experi- encing a year of core (Tier 1) instruction. This involved using IGDIs combined with other crite- rion measures (see Carta et al., 2015). We also instituted an annual survey of state preschool directors to track changes in adoption and implementation of MTSS in the field of early child- hood education and to establish the social validity of MTSS with respect to practitioners’ percep- tions of the challenges, needs, and benefits of RTI.

Language and early literacy intervention development was organized using an iterative set of design, test, revise, improve, and retest steps, consistent with the IES Goal 2—Development and Innovation framework. The earliest stage in the development process was informed by knowl- edge of existing evidence-based practices and the need to deliver practices with fidelity within real preschool classrooms in small groups. Moreover, we sought to address the need for effi- ciency and economy by designing interventions that relatively unskilled paraprofessionals rather than teachers could implement.

We piloted promising ideas using AB single-case designs (Horner et al., 2005) and further studied the most feasible and promising interventions through systematic replications using mul- tiple baseline and repeated-acquisition single-case experimental designs to rule out rival explana- tions of effects. This was accomplished with a range of programs, teachers, and learners, which allowed us to learn how to teach others to implement the interventions and to clarify those instructional protocols that proved to be unclear (Kratochwill et al., 2010).

After demonstrating that implementation with good fidelity in real classrooms was feasible and single-case data on students’ learning outcomes were yielding strong effects, studies pro- gressed to RCTs. Our scale-up efforts incorporated RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of the most promising new interventions (IES Goal 3—Efficacy and Replication research). These efficacy studies were planned to be well powered statistically using randomized block designs and cluster randomized designs that could best control for rival hypotheses and the nesting of children within classrooms within programs (Rhoads, 2011).

Accomplishments

Individual growth and development indicators 2.0. Emerging from this work were screening and progress monitoring measures that for the most part corresponded to our interventions. Most notable were general outcome measures meant to align with the domains addressed in the inter- ventions (see McConnell et al., 2015). These consisted of five IGDIs: Picture Naming Vocabu- lary (Oral Language), Which One Doesn’t Belong? (Comprehension), First Sounds (Phonological Awareness), Rhyming (Phonological Awareness), and Sound Identification (Alphabet Knowledge).

Tier 2 vocabulary and comprehension intervention. The Story Friends supplemental curriculum consists of two storybook series containing embedded instruction and automated scripted audio

256

T ab

le 2

. T

he C

R T

IE C

F o cu

se d

Pr o gr

am o

f R es

ea rc

h St

ud ie

s by

Y ea

r.

20 08

-2 00

9 20

09 -2

01 0

20 10

-2 01

1 20

11 -2

01 2

20 12

-2 01

3 20

13 -2

01 4

M ea

su re

m en

t re

se ar

ch fo

cu s

C

o nt

en t

de te

rm in

at io

n fo

r IG

D Is

( 2.

0) C

o nt

en t

an al

ys is

/ de

ve lo

pm en

t

It

em b

an k

de ve

lo pm

en t,

te st

in g,

a nd

s ca

lin g

It em

c o ns

tr uc

ti o n

Sc al

in g

Sc al

in g

Sc

re en

in g

ac cu

ra cy

C ri

te ri

o n

da ta

co

lle ct

io n

C la

ss ifi

ca ti o n

ac cu

ra cy

B

en ch

m ar

k da

ta ba

se C

o lle

ct in

g da

ta C

o lle

ct in

g da

ta C

o lle

ct in

g da

ta C

o lle

ct in

g da

ta

D

ec is

io n

m ak

in g

V al

id at

io n

V al

id at

io n

V al

id at

io n

Pr o gr

es s

m o ni

to ri

ng re

-s ca

lin g

Se ns

it iv

it y

to c

ha ng

e Se

ns it iv

it y

to c

ha ng

e Su

pp le

m en

ta l r

es ea

rc h

fo cu

s

T ie

r 1

de sc

ri pt

io n

D es

cr ip

ti ve

ev

al ua

ti o n

D es

cr ip

ti ve

ev

al ua

ti o n

St

at e

di re

ct o r’

s su

rv ey

Su rv

ey Su

rv ey

Su rv

ey Su

rv ey

In

te rv

en ti o n

de ve

lo pm

en t

an d

ef fic

ac y

fo ci

T

ie r

2 vo

ca bu

la ry

/ co

m pr

eh en

si o n

C o nt

en t

an al

ys is

an

d pi

lo ti ng

Si ng

le -c

as e

st ud

y Si

ng le

-c as

e st

ud y

R an

do m

iz ed

t ri

al

an d

si ng

le -c

as e

re pl

ic at

io n

C lu

st er

-r an

do m

iz ed

tr

ia l

T

ie r

2 ph

o no

lo gi

ca l a

w ar

en es

s/ al

ph ab

et k

no w

le dg

e C

o nt

en t

an al

ys is

/ de

ve lo

pm en

t Pi

lo ti ng

a nd

s in

gl e-

ca se

s tu

dy Si

ng le

-c as

e de

si gn

w

it h

re pl

ic at

io n

Si ng

le -c

as e

de si

gn

w it h

re pl

ic at

io n

R an

do m

iz ed

t ri

al C

lu st

er -r

an do

m iz

ed

tr ia

l

T ie

r 3

la ng

ua ge

C o nt

en t

an al

ys is

/ de

ve lo

pm en

t Pi

lo t

te st

in g

Si ng

le -c

as e

st ud

y w

it h

re pl

ic at

io n

Si ng

le -c

as e

st ud

y w

it h

re pl

ic at

io n

Si ng

le -c

as e

st ud

y

T

ie r

3 lit

er ac

y C

o nt

en t

an al

ys is

/ de

ve lo

pm en

t Pi

lo t

te st

in g

Si ng

le -c

as e

st ud

y w

it h

re pl

ic at

io n

Si ng

le -c

as e

st ud

y w

it h

re pl

ic at

io n

R an

do m

iz ed

b lo

ck

de si

gn R

an do

m iz

ed b

lo ck

de

si gn

N ot

e. R

ep lic

at io

n is

r ef

er ri

ng t

o c

ro ss

-s it e

re pl

ic at

io n.

Greenwood et al. 257

lessons delivered to children under headphones in small-group listening centers (see Kelley & Goldstein, 2015). The embedded lessons focus on vocabulary and answering inferential ques- tions about the story (comprehension). Each book targeted teaching two new vocabulary words and three comprehension questions. The iterative development process is described in the Kelley and Goldstein (2015) article.

Tier 2 phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge intervention. PAth to Literacy is a teacher-led supplemental intervention that uses carefully designed instructional scripts implemented with students in small groups (Kruse, Spencer, Olszewski, & Goldstein, in press). It consists of a series of 3 lessons in each of 12 units for a total of 36 lessons, teaching blending, segmenting, first part of word identification, and first sound of word identification. The 3 lessons within a unit contain the same instructional language but different instructional items. The lessons are designed to be brief (i.e., less than 15 min) and engaging. The instruction across units progresses from compound words, to two-syllable words, to single-syllable words, to words with simple and complex initial onsets and sounds. Intervention materials include (a) a script for the intervention- ist to teach the skills, (b) scripted instructions for providing feedback to a group during activities that ask children to respond, and (c) lesson materials (e.g., printed pictures) for lesson activities.

Tier 3 reading ready interventions (Language and Literacy). These are brief interventions (i.e., 5-15 min) intended to be conducted by a classroom teacher during center time or free choice time in the preschool classroom (Kaminski et al., 2015). The materials are organized to allow a teacher to simply pull the materials for the day’s activities and conduct that day’s lesson. The intervention lessons provide a supportive structure incorporating critical instructional elements to ensure high-quality instruction, while also allowing teachers the flexibility to individualize the lessons to meet unique student needs. Delivered daily in one-on-one sessions, the lessons are designed to meet the needs of preschool children with limited attention as well as limited language and lit- eracy skills. The language lessons, for example, follow a common format and sequence for each book, with suggested games; however, teachers can select from a list of games if an optional game or variation of a game will better meet the needs of the child. Similarly, the early literacy lessons follow a scope and sequence and provide suggested games for each lesson. There are optional game variations, and teachers can choose from a selection of games for any lesson. The Kaminski et al. (2015) article describes the development and evaluation of their Tier 3 early lit- eracy intervention.

Conclusion In summary, the rationale for an MTSS approach to preschool language and literacy instruction has been presented along with an overview of the CRTIEC team’s effort to contribute new knowl- edge, tools, and practices that are feasible, efficient, and evidence-based. The next four articles in this issue report further details of this development and evaluation work in greater detail. McConnell et al. (2015) describe the design and development of a reliable and valid measure- ment framework that is feasible for MTSS models. Carta et al. (2015) report on a study of Tier 1 instruction and on the proportions of children who would likely benefit from higher tiers of sup- port in an MTSS model. Kelley and Goldstein (2015) focus on the development of a Tier 2 sup- plemental curriculum that was developed to improve vocabulary and comprehension abilities in preschoolers. Kaminski et al. (2015) describe the development and evaluation of a Tier 3 inter- vention that focuses on phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge skills. These articles describe the progress that has been made in the development of assessments and interventions needed to implement an MTSS model in a variety of early childhood education settings. They

258 Journal of Early Intervention 36(4)

highlight the steps involved in a development and evaluation process that progresses from initial descriptive research and case studies with researcher staff implementation through scale-up efforts taking place with increasing reliance on teaching staff implementation. These efforts have produced many of the component tools and practices required to implement a full-scale, holistic model of MTSS in early childhood settings. Certainly, further refinement in early literacy and language assessments and interventions for preschoolers is warranted. In this issue, we focus on the tools and practices that are most ready for widespread dissemination and indicate areas of further development that are continuing.

It is important to recognize that the next generation of research on MTSS models in early childhood education will need to investigate effects of a coordinated effort to combine these component tools and practices into a feasible system of instruction that will meet the needs of all children in classrooms. The advent of empirically supported Tier 2 and Tier 3 supplemental cur- ricula to address language and early literacy, as well as valid and reliable measures, provides a strong foundation for these future research efforts. One of the challenges will be to work out how to coordinate efforts that address multiple developmental outcomes (e.g., social emotional/ behavior and math/science, as well as language and literacy). Nevertheless, we believe that the research summarized in this issue represents important contributions to the prevention of lan- guage and literacy disabilities and the improvement of school success for all children.

Authors’ Note The opinions presented in this article are those of the authors, and no official endorsement of the Institute of Education Sciences should be inferred.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Additional support was provided by the Kansas Intellectual and Developmental Research Center (HD002528) and the Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies, University of Kansas.

Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi- cation of this article: This work was conducted by the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood supported by Grant R324C080011 to the University of Kansas (Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta, prin- cipal investigators), from the National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

References Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The condition

of education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Bailet, L. L., Kepper, K. K., Piasta, S. B., & Murphy, S. P. (2009). Emergent literacy intervention for pre-

kindergarteners at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 336-355. Barnett, D. W., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2007). Achieving science-based practice through

response to intervention: What it might look like in preschools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 31-54.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing young children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. Elementary School Journal, 107, 251-272.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to interven- tion: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85-95.

Bocala, C., Mello, D., Reedy, K., & Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2009). Features of state response to interven- tion initiatives in northeast and islands region states (Issues & Answers Report, REL2009-083).

Greenwood et al. 259

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 166-176.

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-interven- tion research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.

Buysse, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2010). Recognition and response: Response to intervention for PreK. Young Exceptional Children, 13, 2-13.

Buysse, V., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Soukakou, E., LaForett, D. R., Fettig, A., & Schaaf, J. M. (2013). Recognition and response: A model of response to intervention to promote academic learning in early education. In V. Buysse & E. S. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 69-84). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Atwater, J., McConnell, S. R., Goldstein, H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2015). Identifying preschool children for higher tiers of language and early literacy instruction within a response to intervention framework. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 281-291.

Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. (n.d.). Available from http://www.crtiec.dept. ku.edu/

Chard, D. J., & Kameenui, E. J. (2000). Struggling first-grade readers: The frequency and progress of their reading. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 28-38.

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., & Kapp, S. (2007). Vocabulary intervention for kindergarten students: Comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 74-88.

Division for Early Childhood, National Association for the Education of Young Children, and National Head Start Association. (2013). Frameworks for response to intervention in early childhood education: Description and implications. Jointly developed by the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and the National Head Start Association. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/uploads/docs/about_dec/position_ concept_papers/DEC_NAEYC_NHSAJointPaperonRTIinEarlyChildhood_final.pdf

Early, D., Barbarin, O., Bryan, B., Burchinal, M., Chang, F., Clifford, R., . . . Weaver, W. (2005). Pre- kindergarten in eleven states: NCEDL’s multi-state study of pre-kindergarten and state-wide early educational programs (SWEEP) study. Retrieved from http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/ Prekindergartenin11States.pdf

ECO Center. (2011). SPR reporting requirements. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ about/reports/annual/2007plan/program.html

Ehri, L. C., & Nunes, S. R. (2002). The role of phonemic awareness in learning to read. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 110-139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fox, L., Carta, J. J., Strain, P. S., Dunlap, G., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2009). Response to intervention and the pyramid model. Retrieved from http://www.challengingbehavior.org/do/resources/documents/rti_pyr- amid_web.pdf

Fox, L., Carta, J. J., Strain, P. S., Dunlap, G., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2010). Response to intervention and the pyramid model. Infants & Young Children, 23, 3-13.

Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid American Journal of Public Health, 100, 590-595.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301-323.

Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-500.

260 Journal of Early Intervention 36(4)

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). The role of assessment in the three-tier approach to reading instruction. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to inter- vention (pp. 29-44). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2009, 4050). Retrieved from http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504995.pdf

Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying a response to intervention process for early literacy develop- ment in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 198-213.

Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2012). Curriculum-based early literacy assessment and differentiated instruc- tion with high-risk preschoolers. Reading Psychology, 33, 11-46.

Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R. A., Linas, M., Carta, J. J., & Nylander, D. (2011). The response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1-22.

Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Atwater, J., Goldstein, H., Kaminski, R., & McConnell, S. R. (2013). Is a response to intervention (RTI) approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction needed? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33, 48-64.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Harwood, R. L., Miller, J. G., & Irizarry, N. L. (1995). Culture and attachment: Perception of the child in context. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J. W., McGee, G., Odom, S. L., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single- subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 128-148.

Hunter, A., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2009). The Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for early learning: Addressing challenging behaviors in infants and toddlers. Zero to Three, 29, 5-12.

Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ wwc/default.aspx

Jackson, R., McCoy, A., Pistorino, C., Wilkinson, A., Burghardt, J., Clark, M., & Swank, P. (2007). National evaluation of Early Reading First: Final report (NCEE 2007-4007 rev.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response-to-intervention, and prevention of reading dif- ficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 1-14.

Justice, L. M., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. (2008). Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 51-68.

Kaminski, R. A., Powell-Smith, K. A., Hommel, A., McMahon, R., & Aguayo, K. B. (2015). Development of a Tier 3 curriculum to teach early literacy skills. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 313-332.

Kelley, E. S., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Building a Tier 2 intervention: A glimpse behind the data. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 292-312.

Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ pdf/wwc_scd.pdf

Kruse, L., Spencer, T., Olszewski, A., & Goldstein, H. (in press). Small groups, big gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with preschoolers with early literacy deficits. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.

Landry, S. H., Assel, M. A., Anthony, J. L., & Swank, P. R. (2013). Developing a universal screening and progress monitoring tool and its applicability for us in response to intervention. In V. Buysse & E. S. Peisner-Feinberg (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 155-168). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learn- ing disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 539-544.

McConnell, S. R., & Missall, K. N. (2008). Best practices in monitoring progress for preschool children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 561-573). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Greenwood et al. 261

McConnell, S. R., Wackerle-Hollman, A. K., Roloff, T. A., & Rodriguez, M. (2015). Designing a mea- surement framework for response to intervention in early childhood programs. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 263-280.

Merrell, K. W., & Buchanan, R. (2006). Intervention selection in school-based practice: Using public health models to enhance systems capacity of schools. School Psychology Review, 35, 167-180.

Missall, K. N., Carta, J. J., McConnell, S. R., Walker, D., & Greenwood, C. R. (2008). Using individ- ual growth and development indicators to measure early language and literacy. Infants and Young Children, 21, 241-253.

National Center for Special Education Research. (2007). Special education research and development cen- ters (IES-NCSER-2008-03) (CFDA Number 84.324C). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences.

National Center for Special Education Research. (2014). Request of applications: Special education research grants—FY 2015 (CFDA Number: 84.332A). Request for Applications. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2015_84324A.pdf

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publica- tions/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf

O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disor- ders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Research advances and promising interventions. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32775/pdf/TOC.pdf

Office of Head Start. (2012). Report to congress on the final head start program designation renewal sys- tem. Retrieved from https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/data/rc/head_start_designation_renewal_sys- tem_final_rule.pdf

Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explana- tion and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23-33.

Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Early, D., & Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child–teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9, 144-159.

Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008). Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness: Report from the preschool curriculum evaluation research initiative. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCER20082009rev

Pullen, P. C., & Justice, L. M. (2003). Enhancing phonological awareness, print awareness, and oral lan- guage skills in preschool. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 87-98.

Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L., & Coyne, M. D. (2010). A tiered interven- tion model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 110-123.

Rhoads, C. H. (2011). The implications of “contamination” for experimental design in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36, 76-104.

Russell, J., McCoy, A., Pistorino, C., Wilkinson, A., Burghardt, J., Clark, M., . . . Swank, P. (2007). National Evaluation of Early Reading First: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ pdf/20074007.pdf

Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council: National Academy Press.

Snyder, P. A., Wixson, C. S., Talapatra, D., & Roach, A. T. (2008). Assessment in early childhood: Instruction-focused strategies to support response-to-intervention frameworks. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 25-34.

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7-26. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading

Assessment. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

262 Journal of Early Intervention 36(4)

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Snyder, P. (2006). Integrating frameworks from early childhood intervention and school psychology to accelerate growth for all young children. School Psychology Review, 35, 519-534.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of RTI. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339-361.

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, 225-256.

Walker, D., Greenwood, C. R., Hart, B., & Carta, J. J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomes based on early language production and socioeconomic factors. Child Development, 65, 606-621.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848-872.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 11-29). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zill, N., & Resnick, G. (2006). Emergent literacy of low-income children in Head Start: Relationships with child and family characteristics, program factors, and classroom quality. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 347-371). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Copyright of Journal of Early Intervention is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.