Providing Intensive Intervention using Data-Based Individualization (DBI) in Academics Rebecca Zumeta, Ph.D. TA&D Coordinator November 2012

2 2 Today’s Webinar  The need for intensive intervention  Using Data-Based Individualization (DBI) to provide intensive intervention in academics  DBI process with student example  Kelsey- reading  Time for questions

3 3 Intensive interventions are designed to address severe and persistent learning or behavior difficulties. These interventions should be data driven and are characterized by increased intensity (e.g. smaller group, expanded time) and individualization of academic instruction and/ or behavioral supports.

4 4 The Need for Intensive Intervention  2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress data indicate that approximately 2/3 of students with disabilities performed below the Basic proficiency level in reading and math at 8 th grade. The same was true for 4 th grade reading; Nearly half were below Basic for 4 th grade math.  4 out of 5 are either unemployed or work in low-paying jobs as young adults (NLTS-2).  Although the dropout rate has declined significantly over the past 10 years, students with learning disabilities continue to drop out of school at a much higher rate than their non-disabled peers (Cortiella, 2011).  Many tiered intervention initiatives have not sufficiently addressed students with the most intensive needs.

5 5 The Need for Intensive Intervention Not all students respond to standardized, evidence-based interventions… Analysis of student response data from controlled studies suggests that approximately 3-5% of students do not respond to standard, evidence-based intervention programs (Fuchs et al., 2012; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2009; Conduct Prevention Problems Research Group, 2002). Despite interventions being generally effective for students demonstrating difficulty Categorization of ‘risk’ may be too broadly defined in these studies to generalize to students with the most intensive needs

6 6 What does this suggest?  Although standardized, evidence-based (i.e., secondary, Tier 2, or remedial curriculum materials) interventions are effective for many students, they may be insufficient for those with the most intensive needs.  There is likely no “silver bullet” intervention program(s) that will meet the needs of all students who have significant and persistent academic or behavior challenges.  For some students, individualized, intensive intervention will be necessary to facilitate progress. Student data and guiding principles for intensifying intervention should drive these decisions. Note: Many good teachers already adjust their instruction; DBI is a process that helps them to do so in a more systematic and data- driven way.

7 7 Who needs intensive intervention?  Students with disabilities who are not making adequate progress in their current instructional program.  Students with disabilities who present with very low academic achievement, and/or high-intensity or high-frequency behavior problems  Students in a tiered intervention program who have not responded to secondary intervention programs delivered with fidelity

8 8 NCII’s Approach to Intensive Intervention: Data-Based Individualization (DBI) Data-Based Individualization (DBI) is a systematic method for using data to determine when and how to provide more intensive intervention:  Origins in data-based program modification/ experimental teaching first developed at the University of Minnesota (Deno & Mirkin, 1977) and expanded upon by others (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Fuchs, Fuchs, &Hamlett, 1989b; Capizzi & Fuchs, 2005).  DBI is a process, not a single intervention program or strategy.  Not a one-time fix—Ongoing process comprising intervention and assessment adjusted over time

9 9 Is DBI the same as RTI? Special Education? Many components of DBI are consistent with elements of special education and tiered service delivery systems. Although DBI does not have to operate within these systems, it certainly could. Such designations may vary by context. Tiered Interventions (RTI, MTSS, PBIS) Remediation program/ secondary intervention platforms a precondition (usually) Progress monitoring Team-based decisions based on data Special Education Individualized instruction/ intervention Progress monitoring Team-based decisions based on data

10 Before starting DBI, consider the secondary intervention platform…  Has the student been taught using an evidence- based secondary intervention platform that is appropriate for his/her needs?  Has the program been implemented with fidelity? Content Dosage/schedule Group size  Has the program been implemented for a sufficient amount of time to determine response? Note: You may think of “secondary platform” as Tier 2, strategic intervention, or the remedial curriculum materials you use for struggling learners.

11 Secondary Intervention Platform: Deliver evidence-based intervention with fidelity

12 NCII’s Intervention Tools Chart provides reviews of secondary intervention platforms  Behavior Tools: Coming Soon!  Academic Tools: intervention-tools intervention-tools

13 Secondary Intervention Platform: Student Example Kelsey Background: Kelsey emerged with serious reading problems, reading at an early 2 nd grade level at the beginning of 4 th grade. Intervention Platform: Kelsey’s teacher selected a research-validated program that addressed phonological awareness, word study, and fluency skills.

14 Secondary Intervention Platform Student Example Kelsey Fidelity  Group size: 2-6 students  Duration: minutes per session  Frequency: 3-4 sessions per week for 7 weeks  Instructional content & delivery: Explicit instruction covering all components laid out in the instruction manual  Progress Monitoring: Passage Reading Fluency collected weekly

15 Caveat Regarding Secondary Interventions A small number of students may present with very significant academic or behavioral difficulties where a standardized secondary intervention alone is unlikely to be effective. Intervention teams may choose to bypass the secondary intervention platform in favor of moving directly to intensive intervention in these instances. However, decisions to bypass a standardized secondary platform should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

16 Progress Monitoring: Is the secondary intervention working?

17 Progress Monitoring Collect progress monitoring data using a validated assessment tool. Consider… 1.Frequency of assessment needed 2.Reliability and validity of the assessment 3.Assessment’s ability to detect improvement 4.The rate of change at which a student should progress to meet his/her goal 5.The amount of time needed to determine response Note: NCII is planning a future webinar on progress monitoring. Please visit for more resources for progress monitoring.

18 Progress Monitoring: Student Example Kelsey Valid tool: Kelsey’s teacher implemented formal progress monitoring each week, using passage reading fluency (PRF) assessments Detect improvement : This progress monitoring tool was able to detect changes in Kelsey’s reading, given her skill level. Rate of progress: Based Kelsey’s progress monitoring graph, she was not progressing at the rate needed to meet her goal.

19 Progress Monitoring Kelsey’s Example- Reading

20 Next Steps  Despite a secondary intervention delivered with fidelity, Kelsey continued to make insufficient progress.  The intervention team decided that more intensive supports were needed.  Additional data will help the team to individualize the intervention

21 Diagnostic Assessment: What changes are needed to support Kelsey?

22 Diagnostic Assessment  Progress Monitoring assessments help teams to determine when an instructional change is needed.  Diagnostic assessments help teams determine the nature of the intervention change needed.

23 Diagnostic Assessment Potential Data Sources:  Classroom-based assessments  Error analysis of progress monitoring data  Functional behavior assessment (FBA)  Student work samples  Standardized measures (if feasible) Note: NCII has planned a future webinar on use of diagnostic assessment to inform instructional planning. It will take place in early 2013.

24 Diagnostic Assessment: Student Example Kelsey  To determine the nature of the instructional change needed, Kelsey’s teacher conducted an error analysis of Kelsey’s most recent passage reading fluency data.  She also administered a phonics survey to determine Kelsey’s decoding strengths and weaknesses.

25 Intervention Adaptation: Use Diagnostic Information to Adapt the Intervention

26 Intervention Adaptation/Change  When appropriate, use diagnostic data to make adjustments/adaptations to the secondary intervention platform to meet the unique needs of the individual.  In some cases, however, data may indicate that the student requires a different intervention platform or approach. Consider Two types of intervention change: Quantitative Qualitative

27 Quantitative Changes  Increase intervention length, frequency, or duration  Decrease group size  Decrease heterogeneity of the intervention group  Increase the skill level of the interventionist Note: In many cases, quantitative changes may be necessary, but not sufficient to facilitate progress for students with intensive needs.

28 Qualitative Changes Qualitative adaptations may also be made to the intervention platform that alter the way the content is delivered, how students respond, or the amount of adult feedback and error correction they receive.

29 Qualitative Changes: Principles of Intensive Intervention  Use precise, simple language to teach key concepts or procedures.  Present the same or a similar partially worked example. Explain why the step is important, have the student do it, and explain importance.  When introducing a concept, provide worked examples and show the steps in writing.  Break tasks into smaller steps, compared to less intensive levels of instruction/intervention.  Provide concrete learning opportunities (including role play and use of manipulatives)  Use explicit instruction and modeling with repetition to teach a concept or demonstrate steps in a process.  Have students explain new concepts, in their own words, incorporating the important terms you’ve taught. (Fuchs et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2012)

30 Qualitative Changes: Principles of Intensive Intervention  Once students can complete entire examples and explain their work, incorporate fluency building activities.  Once students can fluently produce correct work, move to a new concept. Provide ongoing practice opportunities to facilitate skill maintenance.  Fade steps from examples, so students gradually assume responsibility for completing more and more steps.  Provide explicit error correction, and have student repeat the correct response. Provide repeated opportunities to correctly practice the step. (Fuchs et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2012) Note: NCII is planning future webinars to provide more details about the application of these principles.

31 Coming Soon! NCII Adaptation Guides Exemplars of adapted, focused instruction in reading and mathematics  Explicit examples of application of principles of intensive intervention  Identification of relevant Common Core Standards  Includes: instructions with sample teacher talk, downloadable materials, and worksheets for extra practice—Coming Soon to

32 Intervention Adaptation: Student Example Kelsey 1. Data suggested that Kelsey inadequately relied on semantics when reading. Thus, her teacher introduced a tape recorder activity to help monitor semantic miscues. 2. Data showed that Kelsey also had difficulty applying decoding strategies to vowel teams. Thus, her teacher applied the following intensive intervention principles to intensify her decoding instruction: Increased explicit instruction of vowel teams Incorporated fluency practice of newly taught teams, with specified mastery criteria Provided explicit error correction Checked for retention over time

33 Ongoing Progress Monitoring: Is the student responding to the adapted, instruction? Is the response sufficient?

34 Progress Monitoring: Evaluation of Student Progress Kelsey  Kelsey’s teacher again studied her progress—She had improved substantially with this revised program, but her most recent 4 progress monitoring scores still fell below her goal line.  Given this, Kelsey is not likely to achieve her goal. Another instructional change is needed.  Kelsey’s teacher may collect additional diagnostic data if needed to inform the instructional change(s).  She will continue to collect progress monitoring data and meet with the intervention team to evaluate progress and further modify the plan as needed.

35 In Summary  DBI is an ongoing process that comprises ongoing assessment, intervention, evaluation, and adjustment to maximize student outcomes.  Intensive interventions will not look the same for all students  Students requiring intensive intervention are likely to need it for a significant amount of time.  There is no quick fix.

36 Caveats & Implementation Tips  DBI is intense. If more than 3-5% of students in a school appear to need it, consider evaluating core instruction, school-wide behavior supports, and secondary intervention programs.  Academic and behavior supports do not exist in isolation; They are often most successful when combined to meet students’ individual needs.  When making intervention adaptations, consider choosing a small number to try at a time. This will allow you to be more systematic in your ongoing progress monitoring and analysis.  Every student presents unique needs. While our examples provide an illustration of the DBI process, it will vary based on individual needs. Some DBI processes will be much more involved than others.

37 References Capizzi, A.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Effects of curriculum-based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (3), Conduct Prevention Problems Research Group (2002). Evaluation of the first 3 years of the Fast Track prevention trail with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(1), 19–35. Cortiella, C. (2011). The State of Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Leadership Training Inst. for Special Education, M. n. (1977). Data-Based Program Modification: A Manual. Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L.& Mirkin, P.K. (1984). The effects of curriculum-based measurement evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2),

38 References Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D, & Hamlett, C.L. (1989b). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive Intervention for Students with Mathematics Disabilities: Seven Principles of Effective Practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), Fuchs, D., Fuchs., L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, National Center for Education Statistics, (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8. NCES National Center For Education Statistics.

39 References National Center for Education Statistics, (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Reading Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8. NCES National Center For Education Statistics. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), doi: /j x Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & SRI International, M. A. (2005). Changes over Time in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Online Submission.

40 Disclaimer This webinar was produced under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Award No. H326Q Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or polices of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this website is intended or should be inferred.

41 Rebecca Zumeta, Ph.D Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC General Information: Website:

42