This study examined the quality of the research base related to strategy instruction priming the underlying mathematical problem structure for students with learning disabilities and those at risk for mathematics difficulties. We evaluated the quality of methodological rigor of 18 group research studies using the criteria proposed by Gersten et al. and 10 single case design (SCD) research studies using criteria suggested by Horner et al. and the What Works Clearinghouse. Results indicated that 14 group design studies met the criteria for high-quality or acceptable research, whereas SCD studies did not meet the standards for an evidence-based practice. Based on these findings, strategy instruction priming the mathematics problem structure is considered an evidence-based practice using only group design methodological criteria. Implications for future research and for practice are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Response to Intervention (RtI) is being implemented as a new initiative in PK‐12 schools with increasing frequency. However, the model must be sustained at the school level, which is potentially difficult due to a number of challenges brought about by systems change. This article applied the Stokes and Baer (1977) framework for programming for generalization and maintenance of behavior change to suggest specific activities in which schools could engage to better ensure RtI sustainability. We specifically discussed ways to (1) introduce to natural maintaining contingencies, (2) train with sufficient exemplars, (3) train loosely, (4) program common stimuli, (5) mediate generalization, and (6) train to generalize. Directions for future research are included.