Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

DOI 10.1007/s10643-010-0372-6

What Does RTI (Response to Intervention) Look Like

in Preschool?
Mojdeh Bayat Gayle Mindes Sheryl Covitt

Published online: 12 February 2010

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract This paper examines the use of Response to

Intervention (RTI) in early childhood programs, more
specifically in preschool settings. The paper proposes that
RTI in preschool could focus on alleviating risk factors as
it relates to social emotional competence, and reduction
of challenging behaviors during early childhood years. A
case-study in which RTI is used for challenging behaviors
of a child is examined. Further, recommendations for
practice in application of Positive Behavior Support (PBS)
in preschool are made.
Keywords Response to Intervention (RTI)

Challenging behaviors
Preschool

Positive Behavior Support (PBS)

Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA)

Introduction
Response to Intervention (RTI) dominates most scholarly
and non-scholarly conversations in education today. In an
annual survey RTI is rated as one of the very hot topics
in education during 2008 and 2009, pushing other topics
such as early intervention and preschool literacy outside
the focus of attention (Cassidy and Cassidy 2008, 2009).
RTI was developed as a new approach to identification and
intervention for children with learning disabilities (IDEA
2004), and is increasingly adopted for identification of any

M. Bayat (&)
G. Mindes
S. Covitt

School of Education, Schmitt Academic Center, DePaul
University, 2320 N, Kenmore Ave, SAC 334, Chicago, IL
60614, USA
e-mail: mbayat@depaul.edu

disability with an adverse effect on academic learning and

performance of children from preschool through grade 12.
Many discussions and papers exist on the various
aspects of RTI and its applications to language-based disabilities in school age children (e.g.: Lyon 1995; Fuchs
et al. 2003; Fuchs and Fuchs 2005; VanDerHeyden et al.
2005; Davis et al. 2007; Meadan and Monda-Amaya 2008;
Griffiths et al. 2009). However, the same cannot be said
about the application of RTI in preschool. Considering the
increasing number of children with special needs in preschool inclusive programs, such as Head Start and statefunded pre-kindergarten programs, it is important to
understand the application of RTI in preschool. It is also
important to understand its impact on identification of
children with disabilities, specifically those children who
have challenging behaviors in preschool. This paper discusses issues related to RTI in preschool. One case study
will be presented as an example of what RTI might look
like in preschool.

What is RTI?
RTI is a multi-tiered data-driven model wherein teaching
strategies are followed up by ongoing assessment to
determine whether the student has improved; if the student
has not improved, the intervention continues (Demski
2009). The RTI (problem solving) team is usually comprised of specialized teachers and a school administrator
who collaborate and consult with the classroom teacher to
enhance the teachers competence and skills. The purpose of
the teams problem-solving involvementis to provide nonspecial education intervention for children who are struggling
academically, before the child is referred for special education
(Tam and Heng 2005; Truscott et al. 2005).

123

494

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

Fig. 1 Three-tiered model of

RTI

Most school districts adopt a 3-tiered model of RTI (see

Fig. 1 for a diagram of an RTI model):
Tier I
The first tier of RTI, called the primary intervention, consists of screening to identify at-risk students, implementing
whole group, high quality research-based instruction, and
progress monitoring of all students (Bradley et al. 2007).
At this tier, the teacher begins using a researchvalidated
curriculumthat might have been recommended by the
RTI team. The teacher targets specific skills in large or
small group format, and conducts ongoing assessment to
make sure of the efficacy of the intervention.
Tier II
If children who are identified in Tier I continue to have
difficulties after the implementation of the evidence based

123

curriculum, parental consent is obtained for these children

to receive private tutoring and a more intense intervention
in addition to the Tier 1 intervention. In Tier II private
tutoring might be done by a specialized teacher or a general
education teacher (Truscott et al. 2005). At each tier of
intervention students who show slow or no progress are
moved to the subsequent tiers of intervention to receive
individual instruction in higher frequency. Data are collected carefully and meticulously at every level to monitor
progress (Bradley et al. 2007).
Tier III
At this tier the student receives a more intensive intervention
often provided by a specialized teacher and for a longer
durationthat is the student receives additional intervention
beyond those services which he has been receiving in the
previous tiers. If the child shows no progress, the student is
referred for a full evaluation (Fuchs and Fuchs 2007).

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

495

The recommended length for each tier is no more than

8 weeks (Bradley et al. 2007). However, many school
districts use between 8 and 15 weeks for each tier of RTI
(Fuchs 2003; Demski 2009). Although the final tier of
RTI might practically be identical to special education
that is a child receives individual instruction by a learning specialist in high frequencyRTI was originally
designed to be implemented in general education settings
with special educators being an explicit part of the
framework.

For a successful RTI process, conventional testing is not

necessarily the best option of assessment in early care and
education of young children. Rather, an ongoing playbased/curriculum-based authentic assessment, along with
parental observation reports, should be used for monitoring
progress and data collection as well as to understand every
childs strengths and needs within his every day learning
experiences and environment (Beganto 2006; Coleman
et al. 2009). One place where RTI may be especially useful
is with challenging behaviors.

RTI in Early Childhood Education

RTI Applied to Children with Challenging Behaviors in

the Preschool

Although in the language of the law RTI is not specified for

the purpose of identifying disabilities other than learning
disability or recommended for children younger than
school age, the approach is being increasingly applied to
prevention and intervention for younger children and for
identification of other types of special needs besides a
specific learning disability.
The idea of RTI in preschool draws its roots in a belief
that early delays may become learning disabilities if not
addressed at the age when a child should be proficient with
particular skills (Coleman et al. 2009, p. 4). RTI is
described as a potential method for answering preschool
service delivery question (Barnett et al. 2006, p. 569).
Therefore, in preschool RTI could be used in two ways: (1)
to prevent children at risk for academic failure, and (2) to
provide prevention and early intervention for those children who are at risk for special needsfor example, children who have challenging behaviors in early age. The latter is
especially important, because much of early development
of children depends on their social-emotional competence
and self-regulation, and early emotional and behavioral difficulties might lead to further learning and developmental
problems in later years (Gimpel and Holland 2003).
Uniqueness of RTI in the Preschool
The features of an RTI model in preschool do not necessarily differ from the general features of RTI for school age
children. The main difference, however, is in the problemsolving process. In a preschool setting, the RTI team
should consist of early childhood educators, special educators, developmental psychologists, and family members
(Beganto 2006). Family members should be involved in the
RTI process regardless of the childs age. However, in
preschool, family members (and/or the childs primary
caregivers) make an even more critical contribution to the
success of the child, and should be involved as one of the
most important members of the problem-solving team from
the outset.

The issue of challenging behaviors is an important issue,

particularly in preschool, which may be the childs first
experience in group care and education. Some estimates
suggest that about 10% of preschoolers exhibit noticeable
problem behaviors, with 46% of this population exhibiting serious behavior difficulties (Raver and Knitze 2002).
There is evidence that when children show behavior
problems in preschool, they are more likely to have the
same problems later, and/or be diagnosed with disorders
such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct
Disorder (CD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD), or Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD; Lavigne et al.
1996; NICHD Early Childhood Research Network 2003).
Gilliam (2005) presented a sobering report regarding behavior
problems in preschool programs in 40 states. His report indicated that prekindergarten children are expelled at a rate that is
three times that of the older children in K-12 grades. Gilliam
(2005) reported that the lowest rate of expulsion was associated with when there is behavioral intervention in the classroom. In such situation, teachers who have an access to
behavior consultation have the lowest rate of expulsion.
Positive Behavior Support (PBS) is proposed to be an
appropriate approach for use within the RTI framework for
preschool programs (Fox and Hemmeter 2009). PBS is
successfully used as a (1) school-wide strategy; (2) classroom-wide behavior management system; and as (3) an
intervention to be used for individual children (Lewis and
Sugai 1999; Meadan and Monda-Amaya 2008). As a
school-wide approach, PBS seeks to provide support to
promote both academic success and pro-social behavior for
all children (Lewis and Sugai 1999; Blonigen et al. 2008).
In a classroom model, PBS is used to focus on fostering
social competence for children in small and large groups
(Meadan and Monda-Amaya 2008). Finally, a child-level
PBS involves designing a behavioral intervention plan to
provide support and intervention for the child in the school
and at home. Ongoing functional behavior assessment, data
taking, and system change is at the heart of an individual
PBS plan.

123

496

Applying a RTI approach to children with challenging

behaviors in preschool involves forming and maintaining
various relationships. First, since responsive caregiving is
the foundations of resilience, healthy self-regulation and
social-emotional competence (Werner 1995, 2000; Masten
et al. 1991), and since positive teacher/child relationship is
found to be predictive of academic success (Pianta 1999),
establishing and maintaining positive relationships with
children in the classroom is an important feature of prevention and intervention for children with behavior problems. Second, building positive relationships with families
of young children is crucial in promoting social-emotional
competence in children (Fox and Hemmeter 2009).
Therefore, forming and maintaining positive relationships
with children and their families is at the heart of the first
Tier of the RTI in preschool (Fox and Hemmeter 2009).
Additionally, positive behavioral strategies such as
promoting functional communication in children with
language delays, providing praise for appropriate behavior,
teaching methods that promote self-regulation and problem
solving, and collaboration with families and other professionals are some of the components of a high quality early
childhood program in this model at Tier I (Fox and Hemmeter 2009). Tier I RTI for children with challenging
behaviors also includes screening for social-emotional/
regulation problems. Screening for social-emotional problems in preschool children should include social competence goals linked to curriculum, use of functional behavior
analysis records, ecological interviews, child observation
and use of parent and teacher reports (Barnett et al. 2006).
In the second tier of RTI with this model, targeted
systematic social skills instruction is provided for small
group of children in the preschool classroom who are atrisk for behavior problems, but who might not need an
individual behavior intervention plan (Fox and Hemmeter
2009). Tier two intervention might involve a social curriculum targeting specific skills such as getting along,
sharing, appropriate expression of emotions, etc. Special
educators might help early childhood teachers to plan and
carryout small group activities (Barnett et al. 2006).
In the third tier of RTI for children with challenging
behaviors, an intensive and individualized behavior intervention plan is implemented. Tier three involves application of ongoing functional behavior assessment/analysis,
data collection, and frequent progress monitoring to apply
to decision making (Barnett et al. 2006). A behavioral
intervention plan is designed, and brief behavioral intervention trials are made to gauge effectiveness of the plan.
Designing an appropriate behavioral intervention plan
should occur in collaboration with behavior consultants,
special educators, and parents (or other primary caregivers). This collaboration is especially important, because (1)
early childhood teachers do not necessarily have the

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

training background in principles of Applied Behavior

Analysis, which is necessary for creating a positive
behavioral support plan; and (2) the success of a behavioral
intervention plan is only possible when it is implemented
consistently both at home and in school.

A Case example of a Successful RTI in preschool

This case study involves a state funded preschool in a
suburban town in the mid-west. The Midwest School
District (Midwest) supports a variety of programs, each
with its own unique programming and resources. For
example, each preschool program has a different educational philosophy (e.g.: Reggio Emilia, Montessori, HighScope, and other play-based philosophies) and different
types of personnel support (e.g.: some have occupational or
behavior therapists as consultants or on site). Additionally,
the required credentials for preschool teachers vary from
one preschool in the district to the next. Therefore, based
on training and composition of the early childhood educators and other professionals, preschools in this particular
district have varying degrees of expertise and resources for
dealing with atypical behaviors that might occur in children. In the previous year, the school district had decided to
implement a three-tiered RTI frame-work similar to the one
depicted in Fig. 1. Types of curriculum based assessment,
research-based curriculum, and intervention were to be
determined for each school by the problem solving team.
As far as the preschools in the districts were concerned, the
following decisions were made. First, since each preschool
used a different curriculum, a general developmental screening instrument such as Denver II (Frankenburg et al. 1992)
was to be used for the whole class at the beginning of the
school year. Second, it was decided that the type of highquality research based instruction for each preschool would be
determined in consultation with the problem solving team
based on the identified areas of developmental needs in the
preschoolers after the screening results had been studied.
Finally, because there was a possibility that some children might remain unidentified through the general developmental screening, the RTI process for individual children
was also to be initiated when a parent formally requested
any of the following: (1) an observation to be made of her/
his child by a specialist from the home school; (2) some
type of support services to be directly provided in the
preschool to her/his child; or (3) a case study evaluation to
be conducted of her/his child.
Background
Joshua, a 3 1/5 year old boy was enrolled in Prairie Garden
Preschool. Prairie Garden Preschool uses a play-based

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

philosophy. In December, Joshuas mother, Mrs. Kay,

contacted the school district and expressed some concerns
regarding Joshuas behavior. Apparently, Joshua had been
having some frequent melt-downs at home, and had
been displaying some aggressive behaviors that had been
escalating during the past months. Ms. Kay contacted the
school district and requested that Joshua be observed by an
appropriate school professional in his classroom setting, to
see whether he displayed similar behaviors at his preschool
classroom.
Data Collection for Screening
Earlier the school district established the following procedures for behavioral screening: (1) examining the results of
Denver II developmental screening conducted at the
beginning of the school year; (2) interviews with the parent(s), the teacher working directly with the child, and with
the schools administrator; (3) conducting at least 3
observations of the child in the school environment; (4)
conducting a Functional Behavioral Analysis, if warranted.
Parental consent is needed for initiation of child observation and additional data collection.
Mrs. Omani, the Student Service Coordinator of the
district began the process by examining Joshuas screening
results. Based on the results of Denver II, Joshuas development was deemed appropriate for his age level. Thereafter, Mrs. Omani asked Mrs. Kay to meet with her so that
they could discuss her concerns further. During this
meeting, Mrs. Omani learned more about Joshuas family
life and his daily routine. In this same meeting Mrs. Omani
explained the RTI process to Mrs. Kay. She explained that
the length and complexity of the process depends on the
childs needs. For example, a childs behavioral needs
might only require a single observation, feedback to the
parents, and some suggestions to the preschool staff for
behavior management. And that on the other hand, it might
involve various personnels expertise, like consultation
from behavioral specialist, or a psychologist. She asked
Mrs. Kay for verbal and written permission so that she
could begin interviewing the preschool staff and observe
Joshua in his classroom.
Joshua in Tier I of RTI
After obtaining parental consent, Mrs. Omani made a trip
to the Prairie Garden Preschool and met with the preschool
director, Mrs. Palmer, and with the classroom lead teacher.
Mrs. Palmer described Joshua as a quirky child who
growled at classmates in order to scare them. She stated
that Joshua was often being perceived to be a wild child
and a bully by others, and that his behavior had been
perceived as being more severe than it actually was. She

497

believed that Joshuas behaviors were within the typical

range for his age (as had been indicated by the developmental screening results that was conducted in fall), and
there was no cause for concern.
Joshuas teacher, Ms. Audrey was of a different opinion.
She complained that Joshua often displayed behaviors such
as yelling and throwing. She stated that Joshua often
tried to bend the rules of any given game and became
insistent about the roles classmates were to assume during
free play activities. At times, Joshua displayed some bullying behaviors, saying Do [this] or I will hurt you. Ms.
Audrey believed that the reason for Joshuas inappropriate
behaviors was for the mere sake of being defiant to
common rules and procedures. Ms. Audrey described
Joshuas play schemes as well formulated with a logical
order. However, she stated that Joshua often had some
difficulties sharing toys and materials with other children.
She indicated that when in a social situation that required
any negotiation or problem solving with peers, Joshua
seemed to have a low tolerance and high frustration level
for conflict or differences of opinions about the direction of
the play.
Within the next 2 weeks, Mrs. Omani made two
observations of Joshua in his classroom. Two teachers were
present in the classroom throughout the day program.
Ms. Omanis analysis of her notes confirmed many of the
behavioral characteristics that had been previously described by Joshuas parents and the preschool personnel.
However, she also noted several factors related to the
setting eventsfactors related to the immediate and
removed environments relating to Joshua that might contribute to his behaviors.

When Joshua had appropriate behaviors, like playing

with other children cooperatively, he did not receive
any positive attention (like verbal encouragements and
praise) from his teachers.
Joshua was often singled out for any small infractions
like speaking loudly (noted in 24 total incidents during
2 observations), and was verbally reprimanded immediately. This was not the case for other children in the
classroom who spoke loudly occasionally. Joshuas
challenging behaviorssuch as opposition, and verbal
threats to peersoccurred in the following situations:
during small group activities requiring cooperation and
sharing and in several transition timeswhether
in-between activities, or at the beginning and end of
the day.

In the following week, members of the problem-solving

team were designated: Mrs. Omani, a behavior consultant
from the district, a developmental psychologist, Mrs.
Audrey, her assistant, and Mrs. Kay. First, the behavior
consultant made additional observations of Joshua and

123

498

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

conducted a functional behavior analysis. Based on her

analysis a preliminary classroom-wide positive behavior
support plan was written. Second, Mrs. Omni and the
behavior consultant met with both teachers to discuss this
plan of intervention at Tier I. The team met with Mrs. Kay
to discuss and further refine the intervention plan. The team
came up with the following final plan:

specialist demonstrated to the team ways to provide positive attention to Joshua when he displayed a positive
behavior, and to ignore him when he displayed negative
behaviors that were harmless. All members of the problemsolving team, including Joshuas mother decided to collect
data during intervention regarding any change in Joshuas
behavior.

1.

Data Collection for Progress Monitoring

2.

Three social stories were written with the following

topics, It is Hard to Share, I Get Angry Sometimes, and
How we Play Together. Ms. Audrey or her assistant
were to read the stories for the whole group every day
before free-play time, and making sure that Joshua and
others had time to understand and process the stories.
Positive attention and praise were to be given for all
children during small and large group activities for the
following behaviors:
a.

Using positive and kind words, following directions, listening to___, taking turns, sharing.
b. A schedule of positive reinforcement consisting of
an appropriate form of praise, high fives, and a star
chart leading to a favorite activity was designed
for the whole class. Appropriate form of praise
was defined as a praise that describes a behavior in
a positive way precisely so as to provide guidance
for the child for appropriate behavior, such as I
like the way you are sitting so quietly and reading
your book; or I like the way you are sharing the
toy truck with your friend. This schedule of
positive reinforcement for specific behaviors was
to be used for all children, but more specifically
for Joshua, during small and large group activities.
c. Teachers were to use a transition song It is time,
its time, its time to _____ beginning 10 min
before transition and repeating it three times at
3 min intervals until the actual transition occurred.
d. Classroom rules for appropriate sitting, play and
cooperation, loud and small voices, and following
directions were to be written and supported with
pictures using BoardmakerTM symbols. Teachers
were to verbally reiterate and review all rules with
children daily at the beginning of the day and
before every large group activity.
Finally, the problem solving team discussed a behavior
support program to be used by Joshuas parents at home.
The psychologist answered Mrs. Kays questions regarding
Joshuas social emotional development, and together with
the other team members Mrs. Kay identified several
behaviors for reinforcement at home. The team helped
Joshuas mother design a positive reinforcement schedule
at home, and members discussed factors that are important
during implementation. For example, the behavior

123

Within the next 10 weeks, the problem solving team keptup an ongoing open communication among all members to
ensure consistency of intervention. Both teachers and Mrs.
Kay collected daily data on Joshuas behavior to assess
efficacy of the intervention plan. Teachers designed a one
page behavioral checklist to measure occurrences of the
following behaviors during the day: refusal to share toys
and materials, expressing anger by aggression, refusal to
follow directions, refusal to take turns, showing bullying
behaviors toward peers, and displaying aggressive language and behaviors toward others. In addition, teachers
took anecdotal notes at every transition time, and during
free play periods. Joshuas mother was instructed to take
anecdotal notes every time that Joshua had a melt-down
at home.
According to the data, Joshua responded positively to
the intervention. In addition, the changes made in the
delivery of the instruction, the curriculum, and the teachers behaviors proved to be effective for the entire classroom as well as promoting positive classroom management
strategies in the teachers. After 10 weeks, by the beginning
of spring, teachers and the parents reported Joshuas
behavior as significantly improved. Joshua was prepared to
successfully participate in the transition activities designed
for the incoming kindergarteners sponsored by the local
elementary school.
Joshua is currently enrolled in the Kindergarten.
Although he requires occasional support and guidance from
adults in the environment, he shows all signs of socialemotional adjustment, and currently participates in all
school activities along with his peers with much success.
Had Joshua not responded positively at the first tier of
intervention, subsequent hypothetical interventions in tiers
II and III might be as follow:
Joshua in Tier II
In addition to the classroom-wide positive behavior support
plan already in use, an individual behavioral intervention
plan would be written for Joshua with details regarding
shaping and changing one or two targeted behaviors. A
consistent schedule for use of positive reinforcements
would be articulated within the plan. A behavior specialist

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

would conduct 30 min one-on-one trial sessions with

Joshua two to three times per week in which the behavior
plan is implemented. For consistency, a similar plan of
intervention for targeted behaviors would be followed up at
home by the parents and in the classroom during the group
activities by the teachers. Data collection for progress
monitoring would continue the same way as in Tier I both
in the classroom and at home. However, in addition to
these measures, anecdotal notes would also be taken during
the individual sessions. The behavior specialist, teachers,
and parents would communicate via phone, email or in
person as needed to ensure the consistency of plan.
Joshua in Tier III
Additional functional behavioral analysis might be conducted and Joshuas behavior intervention plan might be
modified. Joshua would receive one-on-one support in trial
sessions from the behavior specialist on a daily basis
varying in duration from 30 to 45 min in which his
behavior intervention plan would be followed consistently.
The classroom teachers and parents continue to follow
similar progress monitoring and intervention plans in both
environments. Data collection and communication follows
the same pattern as in tier II. If Joshua fails to respond to
intervention at tier III after 810 weeks, he would be
referred for a full evaluation and diagnostic testing through
the school district.
Discussion and Recommendations
As shown here, use of RTI in preschool can be specifically
beneficial to address social-emotional issues in children,
and to provide appropriate positive behavior support for the
child. Three issues should be kept in mind regarding this
case study: (1) the preschool under study had some unique
resources at its disposal, such as a behavior specialist and a
psychologist; (2) staff had established some successful
ways of communicating with parents and getting the family
members involved in the RTI process; and a parent made
the initial request for assistance, assuring parent involvement in the intervention.
We speculate that establishing partnership with families should not be an overly difficult task for many early
childhood programs, because not only are early childhood
programs generally parent friendly, but state and federal
programs have been making ongoing efforts in providing
pre-service and in-service training for early childhood
professionals to promote competency in the area of
working with families. On the other hand, having
resources like expert consultation are not commodities
that are readily available in many state and federally

499

funded early childhood programs. However, looking at

the above case study, it could easily be observed that the
intervention that was provided for Joshua at school and in
his home consisted of a simple plan of strategies that
promoted a classroom-wide positive behavior support.
Design and implementation of a such a plan do not necessarily require an experts input. We therefore make the
following recommendations regarding the use of RTI in
preschool:
At its most basic level, RTI in preschool should be used
to address challenging behavior of children and to
promote social-emotional competency early on. This
would provide a necessary developmental support for
these young children, and increase the likelihood for
them to be academically successful as they enter
Kindergarten and higher grades.
RTI should be a natural part of the daily curriculum. For
example:

The preschool program should have a program-wide

positive behavior support plan that all personnel use
consistently.
Preschool teachers should have a classroom-wide
positive behavior support plan that they consistently
implement for all children throughout the day.
Developmental screening should occur at least two
or three times during the preschool year to detect any
developmental issues in children.

Training in principles of Applied Behavior Analysis,

Positive Behavior Support, Functional Behavior Assessment, and behavior intervention planning and implementation should be a part of pre-service as well as inservice programs for Early Childhood Education professionals. This is especially important, as RTI becomes
widely adopted by early childhood programs.
Administrators, teachers, and other professionals in
school should follow a basic common protocol for
communication and collaboration with the family members. For example:

The school RTI process is explained at the beginning

of the school year during the open-houses, and
through school newsletters that are sent home.
Parents are encouraged as part of this orientation to
bring home and school behavioral concerns to the
table for coordinated problem-solving.
A parent involvement plan exists and is followed by
all preschool personnel consistently.
There are specific protocols and code of ethics for
talking and communicating with parents.

Finally, RTI should not be used to delay diagnosis and

provision of services for children with special needs.

123

500

We conclude with an emphasis on this final recommendation that RTI should only be used as a prevention
measure, and not as a delaying tactic for provision of
necessary services for children who might have special
needs. One way to ensure the success of RTI in early
childhood programs is to demonstrate its correct use by
utilizing it as a vehicle for alleviation of risk factors and
promotion of future developmental health and academic
success, and for speedy diagnosis and provision of services
for children with special needs.

References
Barnett, D. W., Elliott, N., Wolsing, L., Bunger, C. E., Haski, H.,
McKissick, C., et al. (2006). Response to intervention for young
children with extremely challenging behaviors: What it might
look like? School Psychology Review, 35(4), 568582.
Beganto, S. J. (2006). Of helping and measuring for early childhood
intervention: Reflections on issues and school psychology role.
School Psychology Review, 35(4), 615620.
Blonigen, B. A., Harbaugh, W. T., Singell, L. D., Horner, R. H., Irvin,
L. K., & Smolkowski, K. S. (2008). Application of economic
analysis to school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS)
programs. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(1),
519.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to
intervention 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children,
39(5), 812.
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2008). Whats hot for 2008: In the 12th
annual survey, phonics is not hot for the first time. Reading
Today, 25(4), 1. 4, 11.
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2009). Whats hot for 2009: National
reading panel influence wanes in 13th annual survey. Reading
Today, 26(4), 1. 1011.
Coleman, M. R., Roth, F. P., & West, T. (2009). Roadmap to Pre-K RTI:
Applying response to intervention in preschool settings. National
Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc. Retrieved July 7, from
http://www.rtinetwork.org/images/stories/learn/roadmaptoprekrti.
pdf.
Davis, G. N., Lindo, E. J., & Compton, D. L. (2007). Children at risk
for reading failure: Constructing an early screening measure.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 3237.
Demski, J. (2009). Asses, instruct, repeat. The Journal. Retrieved July
7, 2009 from http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/05/01/assessinstruct-repeat.aspx?sc_lang=en&sc_mode=edit.
Fox, L., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2009). A program-wide model for
supporting social emotional development and addressing challenging behavior in early childhood settings. In W. Sailor, G.
Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive
behavior support (pp. 177202). New York: Springer.
Frankenburg, W. K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., Bresnick, B., Maschka, P.,
Edelman, N., et al. (1992). Denver II: Denver developmental
screening test. Denver, CO: Denver Developmental Materials
Inc.
Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 18, 172186.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A
blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 38(1), 5761.

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:493500

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model implementing responsiveness
to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 1420.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003).
Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and
implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning
Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18(3), 157171.
Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates
in state prekindergarten programs. Foundation for Child Development: FCD policy brief series No. 3. New York: Author.
Retrieved July 10, 2009 from http://www.challengingbehavior.
org/explore/policy_docs/prek_expulsion.pdf.
Gimpel, G. A., & Holland, M. L. (2003). Emotional behavioral
problems of young children: Effective interventions in the
preschool and kindergarten years. New York: Guilford Press.
Griffiths, A. J., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Skodut, M., & Lilles, E.
(2009). Progress monitoring in oral reading fluency within the
context of RTI. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(1), 1323.
Lavigne, J. V., Gibbons, R. D., Christoffel, K. K., Arend, R.,
Rosenbaum, D., Binns, H., et al. (1996). Prevalence rates and
correlates of psychiatric disorders among preschool children.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 35, 204214.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A
systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 31(6), 124.
Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities:
Contributions from scientists supported by the national institute
of child health and human development. Journal of Child
Neurology, 10(Suppl. 1), S120S126.
Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1991). Resilience and
development: Contributions from the study of children who overcame
adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425444.
Meadan, H., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2008). Collaboration to promote
social competence for students with mild disabilities in general
classroom: A structure for providing school social support.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 158167.
National Institute of Child Health, Human Development Early Child
Care Research Network. (2003). Social functioning in first grade:
Associations with earlier home and child care predictors and
with current classroom experiences. Child Development, 74,
16391662.
Pianta, R. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and
teachers: School psychology book series. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Raver, C. C., & Knitze, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells
policymakers about strategies to promote social and emotional
school readiness among three- and four-year-old children
(NCCP Policy paper No. 3). New York: Columbia University
Mailman School of Public Health.
Tam, K. Y., & Heng, M. A. (2005). A case involving culturally and
linguistically diverse parents in prereferral intervention. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(4), 222230.
Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida
Mental Health Institute. Retrieved July 10, 2009 from http://www.
challengingbehavior.org/do/resources/documents/sek_cap_book
let.pdf.
Truscott, S. D., Cohen, C. E., Sams, D. P., Sansborn, K. J., & Frank,
A. J. (2005). The current state(s) of prereferral intervention
teams: A report from two national surveys. Remedial And
Special Education, 26(3), 130140.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The
emergence and possible futures of response to intervention.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Special Issue:
Response to Intervention, 23, 339361.
Werner, E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 4(3), 8185.

Copyright of Early Childhood Education Journal is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
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.