Is “Response/No Response” Too Simple a Notion for RTI Frameworks? Exploring Multiple Response Types With Latent Profile Analysis

Peng Peng, Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Eunsoo Cho, Amy M. Elleman, Devin M. Kearns, Samuel Patton, Donald L. Compton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomized control trial to explore this question: Does “response/no response” best characterize students’ reactions to a generally efficacious first-grade reading program, or is a more nuanced characterization necessary? Data were collected on 265 at-risk readers’ word reading prior to and immediately following program implementation in first grade and in spring of second grade. Pretreatment data were also obtained on domain-specific skills (letter knowledge, decoding, passage comprehension, language) and domain-general skills (working memory, non-verbal reasoning). Latent profile analysis of word reading across the three time points with controls as a local norm revealed a strongly responsive group (n = 45) with mean word-reading z scores of 0.25, 1.64, and 1.26 at the three time points, respectively; a mildly responsive group (n = 109), z scores = 0.30, 0.47, and 0.55; a mildly non-responsive group (n = 90), z scores = −0.11, −0.15, and −0.55; and a strongly non-responsive group (n = 21), z scores = −1.24, −1.26, and −1.57. The two responsive groups had stronger pretreatment letter knowledge and passage comprehension than the two non-responsive groups. The mildly non-responsive group demonstrated better pretreatment passage comprehension than the strongly non-responsive group. No domain-general skill distinguished the four groups. Findings suggest response to early reading intervention was more complicated than response/no response, and pretreatment reading comprehension was an important predictor of response even with pretreatment word reading controlled.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)454-468
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Learning Disabilities
Issue number6
StatePublished - Nov 1 2020
Externally publishedYes


  • RTI
  • at-risk readers
  • domain-specific and domain-general skills
  • latent profile analysis
  • reading comprehension

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Education
  • Health Professions(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Is “Response/No Response” Too Simple a Notion for RTI Frameworks? Exploring Multiple Response Types With Latent Profile Analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this