As a result of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), Response to Intervention (RTI) became a legal and acceptable basis for determining special education eligibility. While there may be evidence that RTI has had positive effects on the prereferral process for special education in some schools, there still remains controversy in the field of school psychology about many aspects of RTI, in particular the use of RTI in the identification process for children with learning disabilities. In addition, even if school psychologists do come to accept RTI as both a prereferral and identification process, there are arguments about whether or not RTI can be implemented well and sustained in real school systems. The purpose of current questionnaire study was (a) to determine school psychologists' preferences on the use of RTI in both the prereferral and the identification process of students with learning disabilities, (b) to investigate the implementation process in school systems from school psychologists' perspectives, and (c) to examine the role of the school psychologist in RTI implementation efforts and RTI activities. Data were collected from 41 members of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Each participant completed a survey, which related to the above purposes, and responded to items using a 5-point Likert scale. Related to the first purpose, results indicated that sampled school psychologists generally responded favorably to RTI as a prereferral method, but varied on their level of agreement on using RTI for diagnostic purposes. Most respondents agreed that RTI should not be the sole criteria for determining a learning disability and that a comprehensive evaluation should take place including standardized cognitive and academic testing. Related to the second purpose, identified benefits to implementing RTI were: interventions for struggling students occur earlier, improved instruction for all students, greater collaboration between general and special education, and improved method of identifying at risk groups/individuals. Identified challenges to implementing RTI were: need for professional development, lack of teacher preparation, lack of support staff to implement interventions, and intervention fidelity. Related to the third purpose, a majority of respondents agreed that the school psychologist's role should include various RTI activities and in particular RTI activities related to data interpretation, consultation, supervising, and training. Implications from this study indicated the need for school psychologists to continue training and professional development in the area of standardized testing and traditional evaluation methods and not abandon the comprehensive evaluation process. School psychologists also should consider training opportunities to prepare for a broader role that includes activities related to RTI. Schools or districts interested in implementing or maintaining RTI need to prioritize professional development and intervention support in future planning and budget decisions. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]