Efficacy of the RtI Model in the Treatment of Reading Learning Disabilities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract and Intro seem fine. Methodology seems adequate. Results: Did you consider mentioning how sampling was done? Did you consider mentioning results and effect size, especially compared to the control group? I know this is not a meta-analysis, but both of these factors would be important. Generally you provide very good information. Discussion: How did you select 40 minutes, as opposed to 35 or 45 minutes? I think maturation should be important. Some Tier 1 interventions lasted the entire year at only 20 minutes per week. Generally, maturation is a major problem with such a short amount of minutes per week or a long study. Did the Tier 2 and 3 interventions happen in place of the previous Tier? For example, once one was getting Tier 2, they no longer received Tier 1? The reason I ask is otherwise the minutes for Tier 2 and 3 might be the same. By considering maturation, one could possibly question the effectiveness of RtI in general as opposed to general reading intervention. The reader has great information, but how does one know the interventions were effective and replicable. How do you know special education teachers are in the best position to lead Tier 3 reading? Did you consider Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.? I think the reading training for most special education might be inadequate, e.g., Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M., & Menon, S. (2010). Teaching reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74. Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377. Notice many intervention were led and monitored by outsiders, especially university educators and graduate students. I think many, perhaps most special education teachers, lack adequate preparation in delivering reading instruction. The same might be true of elementary teachers in general. Similar research has been done. Did you consider the following articles: Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1-26. Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401-427. References seem to be current. Line 281 typo "consider" Line 342 not clear "need special education teacher."
Author Response
REVIEWER 1 Results: Did you consider mentioning how sampling was done? Did you consider mentioning results and effect size, especially compared to the control group? I know this is not a meta-analysis, but both of these factors would be important. Generally you provide very good information.
A new column of results has been added to Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 where information is collected on statistically significant differences or not that allow us to know if the study has been effective. Specifically, the changes are on the following pages and lines:
- Page 7, line 202 (Table 3)
- Pages 7 and 8, line 207 (Table 4)
- Page 8, line 216 (Table 5)
- Pages 8, 9 10 and 11, line 232 (Table 6)
- Pages 11 and 12, line 238 (Table 7)
- Page 12 and 13, line 247 (Table 8)
- Pages 13 and 14, line 256 (Table 9)
REVIEWER 1 Discussion: How did you select 40 minutes, as opposed to 35 or 45 minutes? I think maturation should be important. Some Tier 1 interventions lasted the entire year at only 20 minutes per week. Generally, maturation is a major problem with such a short amount of minutes per week or a long study. Did the Tier 2 and 3 interventions happen in place of the previous Tier? For example, once one was getting Tier 2, they no longer received Tier 1? The reason I ask is otherwise the minutes for Tier 2 and 3 might be the same. By considering maturation, one could possibly question the effectiveness of RtI in general as opposed to general reading intervention. The reader has great information, but how does one know the interventions were effective and replicable.
On page 16, specifically lines 342 to 347 and lines 356 to 364, the reader is provided with information regarding the effectiveness of the investigations, comparing them with the theoretical model.
REVIEWER 1 How do you know special education teachers are in the best position to lead Tier 3 reading? Did you consider Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.? I think the reading training for most special education might be inadequate, e.g., Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M., & Menon, S. (2010). Teaching reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74. Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377. Notice many intervention were led and monitored by outsiders, especially university educators and graduate students. I think many, perhaps most special education teachers, lack adequate preparation in delivering reading instruction. The same might be true of elementary teachers in general. Similar research has been done. Did you consider the following articles: Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1-26. Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401-427.
On page 16, specifically lines 365 to 372, these questions are answered taking into account the recommended articles, especially the one by Slavin et al. (2011) and also includes another article recovered from the latter.
REVIEWER 1 Line 281 typo "consider"
Corrected, now on line 291.
REVIEWER 1 Line 342 not clear "need special education teacher."
Fixed, now on lines 376 and 377. Educators who should perform the instruction are specified.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The main weak point are conclusions. They must give an answer to the objectives o must be directly related to them (also at the abstract). It is not approppiate to mention personal opinions or aspects that have not been analyzed, as in the last sentence of the paper.
In p. 12: "the most important next step would be to reach some agreement on which are the most 274 appropriate methods for identifying students and thus unify the criteria to be followed". Agreement? It is assumed that this paper investigate precisely which are the best according to what... How will there be an agreement before?
p. 2: If the theoretical framework mentions the need for consensus, why do the paper conclude the same?
Other suggestions:
- Fig. 1 is not pertinent or necesary.
- Check word break at end of line (in-struction, differ-ent, sec-ondly, p. 2; evalu-ated, be-tween, prob-lems, p. 12; be-tween, p. 13)
- Check spaces at tables (last row p. 9 cannot be read completely)
- Use more impersonal speech (avoid first person [we])
- Improve the writing of some sentences: "Despite the model’s multilevel nature, structured in three tiers, how it is used varies 70 according to the state of the students and because it is complex, the ideal would be to 71 unify the model and the criteria to increase the chances of success", p. 2; "Of these 31 documents, four were from Scopus,", p. 3 (among?); "included there being early identification", p. 5; "other studies did decide to do the intervention", p. 11; "they can be grouped according to the component evaluate", p. 12.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2 The main weak point are conclusions. They must give an answer to the objectives o must be directly related to them (also at the abstract). It is not approppiate to mention personal opinions or aspects that have not been analyzed, as in the last sentence of the paper.
On page 14, lines 263 to 266, an explicit reference is made to the objective of the study and then a response is given.
On page 17, lines 395 to 396 have been deleted.
REVIEWER 2 In p. 12: "the most important next step would be to reach some agreement on which are the most 274 appropriate methods for identifying students and thus unify the criteria to be followed". Agreement? It is assumed that this paper investigate precisely which are the best according to what... How will there be an agreement before?
Now on page 15, line 284, a change of lexicon is made for a better explanation of what has been discussed
REVIEWER 2 P2: If the theoretical framework mentions the need for consensus, why do the paper conclude the same?
Page 2, line 71 to 74 is eliminated and in line 70 a change of lexicon is made in order to give coherence to the text.
REVIEWER 2 Other suggestions:
Fig. 1 is not pertinent or necesary.
Deleted on page 3 and all references to it (lines 120 and 121)
REVIEWER 2 Check word break at end of line (in-struction, differ-ent, sec-ondly, p. 2; evalu-ated, be-tween, prob-lems, p. 12; be-tween, p. 13)
Corrected with the Word option "Change hyphens" and selecting the option "None".
REVIEWER 2 Check spaces at tables (last row p. 9 cannot be read completely)
It has not been corrected because it is considered that there will continue to be spaces of this type if changes are made again, so it is considered to wait for the last revision to make it.
REVIEWER 2 Use more impersonal speech (avoid first person [we])
Corrected in lines 104, 106, 107, 114, 116, 117, 125, 195, 203, 277, 327, 328, 337, 349, 351 and 383 and changed to impersonal mode.
REVIEWER 2 Improve the writing of some sentences:
"Despite the model’s multilevel nature, structured in three tiers, how it is used varies 70 according to the state of the students and because it is complex, the ideal would be to 71 unify the model and the criteria to increase the chances of success", p. 2;
Removed as explained above (page 2, lines 70 to 74).
"Of these 31 documents, four were from Scopus,", p. 3 (among?);
Improved drafting (page 3, lines 118 and 119).
"included there being early identification", p. 5;
Sentence removed and redaction improved (page 5, lines 152 and 153)
"other studies did decide to do the intervention", p. 11;
Syntactic bug fixed (now page 12, line 241)
"they can be grouped according to the component evaluate", p. 12.
Improved wording (now page 14, line 279)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract must be rewritten: "Conclusions: a consensus about the different methods and criteria for the identification and monitoring seems necessary" > This idea is not a result, but a starting point.
"40-45 minutes daily sessions" (lines 64 and 316)> it is used as an adjective, so it should be in the singular: "40-45 minute daily sessions" (in fact, if only one number I would recommend writing with hyphen: "40-minute daily sessions")
"other studies decided to realize the intervention" > "realize" doesn't mean "do". Use better "do".
"Second aim in this study was" > "The second" ?
Author Response
All the suggestions made by the reviewer 2 have been made
