Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies

Mendeley  

Zotero  

Ebrahimi M S, Alizadeh H, Ghobari Bonab B, Dastjerdi Kazemi M. Development of Response-to-Intervention Model-Based Program and Evaluating its Effects on Math Problem-Solving in Students with Math Disorder. MEJDS 2021; 11 :138-138
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2283-en.html

Background & Objectives: Mathematics disorder is a subtype of learning disorder, i.e., related to defects in number sense, math facts, accurate and fluent calculation, and mathematical reasoning. Following the emphasis of the working group of the DSM–5 specialists on the evidence–based interventions before diagnosis, the role of response to intervention has become increasingly prominent. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a combination of assessment and intervention within a multi–tier prevention model. RTI, as an alternative to IQ/Achievement Discrepancy Model, can reduce the number of students who need diagnostic assessment and prevent unnecessary labeling. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the response to intervention in prevention and treatment has been proven in numerous studies. Considering the problems caused by the frequency of academic difficulties and the consequences of overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of mathematics disorders, this study aimed to develop an educational program and investigate its effectiveness on math problem–solving in students diagnosed with math disorders.
Methods: The research population was all fourth–grade students with a mathematics learning disorder in Sanandaj City, Iran, in 2018. Eight students diagnosed by Learning Disabilities Centers underwent a Tier 2 intervention program (including two groups of 4 students, in twelve 30–minute sessions), then 3 subjects who required further support participated in Tier 3 intervention (12 individual 50–minute sessions). The study's inclusion criteria included physical health based on the health identity card, the informed consent of students and parents to participate in the study, not being trained using other educational achievement training programs, and male gender. The single–subject analysis with AB design in tier 2 and single–subject study with multiple baseline designs in tier 3 was used. The educational content was developed based on explicit learning principles. Five experts rated each session to evaluate the scale's face and content validity. Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was used to calculate content validity. To interpret and infer from the diagrams, we used percentages of non–overlapping data. The research tools were Math Problem Solving Test (Imani et al., 2017) and Intervention Process Monitoring Checklist.
Results: In the first validation step, 5 raters evaluated the sessions to evaluate the face validity. The mean±SD scores provided by the raters (8.24±0.61) indicated that the face validity was satisfactory. The raters were requested to write down their corrective views and opinions. Next, after providing their views and opinions, the program was re–presented to the raters for reviewing the CVR qualitatively. Finally, a score 1 was obtained, showing that the program was highly validated. For empirical validity, the rate of change in scores indicates satisfactory empirical validity of the training program. The second tier of the intervention improved mathematics performance for most subjects, and the effectiveness of the intervention continued for 5 issues. The results of the third tier of the intervention showed the success of the intervention in two subjects. The intervention did not affect the other subjects. Continuity of effectiveness was observed in the maintenance phase for these two subjects.
Conclusion: The results indicated that RTI was significantly effective in improving math problem solving of students diagnosed based on the discrepancy model. In addition, RTI in mathematics can prevent overdiagnosis substantially.