Response to Intervention A Review of RTI Literacy Assessment/ Monitoring Tools Jim Wright

Response to Intervention 2 Assessment & Progress-Monitoring: Top 5 ‘To Do’ List Define key literacy skills to be assessed at each grade level: select an array of appropriate literacy measures. Hold ‘data meetings’ (K-8) with grade-level teachers or instructional teams soon after each schoolwide literacy screening to consider changes to core instruction, select students for Tier 2 interventions. Create a plan to conduct literacy-skills screening on all students three times per year (K-8) or to screen using archival data (9-12). Develop the capacity as needed to conduct more detailed diagnostic academic assessments of students picked up in schoolwide screenings. Ensure that your school has the capacity to monitor students on Tier 2 interventions 1-2 times per month; Tier 3 at least weekly.

Response to Intervention 3 RTI Literacy: Assessment & Progress-Monitoring The RTI Literacy model collects reading assessment information on students on a schedule based on their risk profile and intervention placement. Reading measures used are valid, reliable, brief, and matched to curriculum expectations for each grade. Depending on the grade, the battery of reading measures used can include assessments in phonological awareness, oral reading fluency, and basic reading comprehension. Source: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge.

Response to Intervention 4 RTI Literacy: Assessment & Progress-Monitoring (Cont.) To measure student ‘response to instruction/intervention’ effectively, the RTI Literacy model measures students’ reading performance and progress on schedules matched to each student’s risk profile and intervention Tier membership. Benchmarking/Universal Screening. All children in a grade level are assessed at least 3 times per year on a common collection of literacy assessments. Strategic Monitoring. Students placed in Tier 2 (supplemental) reading groups are assessed 1-2 times per month to gauge their progress with this intervention. Intensive Monitoring. Students who participate in an intensive, individualized Tier 3 reading intervention are assessed at least once per week. Source: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge.

Response to Intervention 5 Curriculum-Based Measurement: Advantages as a Set of Tools to Monitor RTI/Academic Cases Aligns with curriculum-goals and materials Is reliable and valid (has ‘technical adequacy’) Is criterion-referenced : sets specific performance levels for specific tasks Uses standard procedures to prepare materials, administer, and score Samples student performance to give objective, observable ‘low-inference’ information about student performance Has decision rules to help educators to interpret student data and make appropriate instructional decisions Is efficient to implement in schools (e.g., training can be done quickly; the measures are brief and feasible for classrooms, etc.) Provides data that can be converted into visual displays for ease of communication Source: Hosp, M.K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM. New York: Guilford.

Response to Intervention SOURCE: CAST Website:

Response to Intervention 7 Measuring General vs. Specific Academic Outcomes General Outcome Measures: Track the student’s increasing proficiency on general curriculum goals such as reading fluency. Example: CBM-Oral Reading Fluency (Hintz et al., 2006). Specific Sub-Skill Mastery Measures: Track short-term student academic progress with clear criteria for mastery (Burns & Gibbons, 2008). Example: Letter Identification. Sources: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge. Hintz, J. M., Christ, T. J., & Methe, S. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43,

Response to Intervention 8

Response to Intervention 9 CBM Literacy Measures: Sources DIBELS ( AimsWeb ( Easy CBM ( iSteep ( EdCheckup ( Intervention Central (

Response to Intervention 10 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness/Specific Subskill Mastery Alphabetics Fluency with Text Vocabulary Comprehension

Response to Intervention 11 Initial Sound Fluency (ISF) “standardized, individually administered measure of phonological awareness that assesses a child’s ability to recognize and produce the initial sound in an orally presented word. The examiner presents four pictures to the child, names each picture, and then asks the child to identify (i.e., point to or say) the picture that begins with the sound produced orally by the examiner. Time: About 3 minutes SOURCE: Good et al. (2002) DIBELS administration and scoring guide.

Response to Intervention 12 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness/Specific Subskill Mastery Alphabetics Fluency with Text Vocabulary Comprehension

Response to Intervention 13 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) “assesses a student’s ability to segment three- and four- phoneme words into their individual phonemes fluently. The PSF task is administered by the examiner orally presenting words of three to four phonemes. It requires the student to produce verbally the individual phonemes for each word.” Time: 1 minute SOURCE: Good et al. (2002) DIBELS administration and scoring guide.

Response to Intervention 14 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness Alphabetics/Specific Subskill Mastery Fluency with Text Vocabulary Comprehension

Response to Intervention 15 Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) “Students are presented with a page of upper- and lower-case letters arranged in a random order and are asked to name as many letters as they can.” Time: 1 minute SOURCE: Good et al. (2002) DIBELS administration and scoring guide.

Response to Intervention 16 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness Alphabetics/Specific Subskill Mastery Fluency with Text Vocabulary Comprehension

Response to Intervention 17 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness Alphabetics/Specific Subskill Mastery Fluency with Text Vocabulary Comprehension

Response to Intervention 18 Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) Tests the “alphabetic principle – including letter-sound correspondence and of the ability to blend letters into words in which letters represent their most common sounds. The student is presented a sheet of paper with randomly ordered VC and CVC nonsense words (e.g., sig, rav, ov) and asked to produce verbally the individual letter sound of each letter or verbally produce, or read, the whole nonsense word.” Time: 1 minute SOURCE: Good et al. (2002) DIBELS administration and scoring guide.

Response to Intervention 19 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness Alphabetics/Specific Subskill Mastery Fluency with Text Vocabulary Comprehension

Response to Intervention 20 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness Alphabetics Fluency with Text/General Outcome Measure Vocabulary Comprehension

Response to Intervention 21 Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) “Student performance is measured by having students read a passage aloud for one minute. Words omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. The number of correct words per minute from the passage is the oral reading fluency rate.” Time: 1 minute SOURCE: Good et al. (2002) DIBELS administration and scoring guide.

Response to Intervention 22 Reading: 5 Big Ideas Phonemic Awareness Alphabetics Fluency with Text Vocabulary Comprehension/General Outcome Measure

Response to Intervention 23 Comparison of RTI Assessment/Monitoring Systems DIBELS [Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills] Initial Sound Fluency: Preschool > Middle K Letter Naming Fluency: Beginning K > Beginning Gr 1 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency: Middle K > End Gr 1 Nonsense Word Fluency: Middle K > Beginning Gr 2 Oral Reading Fluency: Middle Gr 1 > Gr 6

Response to Intervention 24 Comparison of RTI Assessment/Monitoring Systems Easy CBM Letter Naming Fluency: K > Gr 1 Letter Sound Fluency: K > Gr 1 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency: K > Gr 1 Word Reading Fluency: K > Gr 3 Oral Reading Fluency: Gr 1 > Gr 8

Response to Intervention 25 Comparison of RTI Assessment/Monitoring Systems AimsWeb Letter Naming Fluency: Beginning K > Beginning Gr 1 Letter Sound Fluency: Middle K > Beginning Gr 1 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency: Middle K > Middle Gr 1 Nonsense Word Fluency: Middle K > End Gr 1 Oral Reading Fluency: Gr 1 > Gr 8 Maze (Reading Comprehension Fluency): Gr 1 > Gr 8

Response to Intervention 26 Comparison of 2 RTI Assessment/Monitoring Systems DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency: Preschool > Middle K Letter Naming Fluency: Beginning K > Beginning Gr 1 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency: Middle K > End Gr 1 Nonsense Word Fluency: Middle K > Beginning Gr 2 Oral Reading Fluency: Middle Gr 1 > Gr 6 AimsWeb Letter Naming Fluency: Beginning K > Beginning Gr 1 Letter Sound Fluency: Middle K > Beginning Gr 1 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency: Middle K > Middle Gr 1 Nonsense Word Fluency: Middle K > End Gr 1 Oral Reading Fluency: Gr 1 > Gr 8 Maze (Reading Comprehension Fluency): Gr 1 > Gr 8

Response to Intervention 27 ‘Elbow Group’ Activity: ‘RTI-Ready’ Literacy Measures In your ‘elbow groups’: Review the set of CBM literacy assessment tools in the handout. Select a ‘starter’ set of literacy measures by grade level that you would like your school to adopt. (If your school already has a standard set of CBM literacy/tools, discuss ways to optimize its use.)

Response to Intervention CBM: Developing a Process to Collect Local Norms Jim Wright

Response to Intervention 29 RTI Literacy: Assessment & Progress-Monitoring To measure student ‘response to instruction/intervention’ effectively, the RTI model measures students’ academic performance and progress on schedules matched to each student’s risk profile and intervention Tier membership. Benchmarking/Universal Screening. All children in a grade level are assessed at least 3 times per year on a common collection of academic assessments. Strategic Monitoring. Students placed in Tier 2 (supplemental) reading groups are assessed 1-2 times per month to gauge their progress with this intervention. Intensive Monitoring. Students who participate in an intensive, individualized Tier 3 intervention are assessed at least once per week. Source: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge.

Response to Intervention 30 Local Norms: Screening All Students (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) Local norm data in basic academic skills are collected at least 3 times per year (fall, winter, spring). Schools should consider using ‘curriculum-linked’ measures such as Curriculum-Based Measurement that will show generalized student growth in response to learning. If possible, schools should consider avoiding ‘curriculum- locked’ measures that are tied to a single commercial instructional program. Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp ). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Response to Intervention 31 Local Norms: Using a Wide Variety of Data (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) Local norms can be compiled using: Fluency measures such as Curriculum-Based Measurement. Existing data, such as office disciplinary referrals. Computer-delivered assessments, e.g., Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) from Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp ). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Response to Intervention 32 Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)

Response to Intervention 33 Applications of Local Norm Data (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) Local norm data can be used to: Evaluate and improve the current core instructional program. Allocate resources to classrooms, grades, and buildings where student academic needs are greatest. Guide the creation of targeted Tier 2 (supplemental intervention) groups Set academic goals for improvement for students on Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. Move students across levels of intervention, based on performance relative to that of peers (local norms). Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp ). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Response to Intervention 34 Local Norms: Supplement With Additional Academic Testing as Needed (Stewart & Silberglit, 2008) “ At the individual student level, local norm data are just the first step toward determining why a student may be experiencing academic difficulty. Because local norms are collected on brief indicators of core academic skills, other sources of information and additional testing using the local norm measures or other tests are needed to validate the problem and determine why the student is having difficulty. … Percentage correct and rate information provide clues regarding automaticity and accuracy of skills. Error types, error patterns, and qualitative data provide clues about how a student approached the task. Patterns of strengths and weaknesses on subtests of an assessment can provide information about the concepts in which a student or group of students may need greater instructional support, provided these subtests are equated and reliable for these purposes.” p. 237 Source: Stewart, L. H. & Silberglit, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp ). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Response to Intervention 35 Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming Using CBM Measures 1.Identify personnel to assist in collecting data. A range of staff and school stakeholders can assist in the school norming, including: Administrators Support staff (e.g., school psychologist, school social worker, specials teachers, paraprofessionals) Parents and adult volunteers Field placement students from graduate programs Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from

Response to Intervention 36 Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming Using CBM Measures 2.Determine method for screening data collection. The school can have teachers collect data in the classroom or designate a team to conduct the screening: In-Class: Teaching staff in the classroom collect the data over a calendar week. Schoolwide/Single Day: A trained team of 6-10 sets up a testing area, cycles students through, and collects all data in one school day. Schoolwide/Multiple Days: Trained team of 4-8 either goes to classrooms or creates a central testing location, completing the assessment over multiple days. Within-Grade: Data collectors at a grade level norm the entire grade, with students kept busy with another activity (e.g., video) when not being screened. Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from

Response to Intervention 37 Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming Using CBM Measures 3.Select dates for screening data collection. Data collection should occur at minimum three times per year in fall, winter, and spring. Consider: Avoiding screening dates within two weeks of a major student break (e.g., summer or winter break). Coordinate the screenings to avoid state testing periods and other major scheduling conflicts. Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from

Response to Intervention 38 Steps in Creating Process for Local Norming Using CBM Measures 4.Create Preparation Checklist. Important preparation steps are carried out, including: Selecting location of screening Recruiting screening personnel Ensure that training occurs for all data collectors Line up data-entry personnel (e.g., for rapid computer data entry). Source: Harn, B. (2000). Approaches and considerations of collecting schoolwide early literacy and reading performance data. University of Oregon: Retrieved from

Response to Intervention 39 Team Activity: Draft a Plan to Conduct an Academic Screening in Your School or District Directions : Discuss a process for collecting screening data three times per year in your school. What are resources in your school that can assist with these screenings? What challenges do you anticipate—and how can you overcome them?

Response to Intervention Monitoring Student Progress at the Secondary Level Jim Wright

Response to Intervention 41 Universal Screening at Secondary Schools: Using Existing Data Proactively to Flag ‘Signs of Disengagement’ “Across interventions…, a key component to promoting school completion is the systematic monitoring of all students for signs of disengagement, such as attendance and behavior problems, failing courses, off track in terms of credits earned toward graduation, problematic or few close relationships with peers and/or teachers, and then following up with those who are at risk.” Source: Jimerson, S. R., Reschly, A. L., & Hess, R. S. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp ). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. p.1090

Response to Intervention 42 Mining Archival Data: What Are the ‘Early Warning Flags’ of Student Drop-Out? A sample of 13,000 students in Philadelphia were tracked for 8 years. These early warning indicators were found to predict student drop-out in the sixth-grade year: Failure in English Failure in math Missing at least 20% of school days Receiving an ‘unsatisfactory’ behavior rating from at least one teacher Source: Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., MacIver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist,42, 223–235..

Response to Intervention 43 What is the Predictive Power of These Early Warning Flags? Source: Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., MacIver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist,42, 223–235.. Number of ‘Early Warning Flags’ in Student Record Probability That Student Would Graduate None56% 136% 221% 313% 47%

Response to Intervention Breaking Down Complex Academic Goals into Simpler Sub-Tasks: Discrete Categorization

Response to Intervention 45 Identifying and Measuring Complex Academic Problems at the Middle and High School Level Students at the secondary level can present with a range of concerns that interfere with academic success. One frequent challenge for these students is the need to reduce complex global academic goals into discrete sub-skills that can be individually measured and tracked over time.

Response to Intervention 46 Discrete Categorization: A Strategy for Assessing Complex, Multi-Step Student Academic Tasks Definition of Discrete Categorization: ‘Listing a number of behaviors and checking off whether they were performed.’ (Kazdin, 1989, p. 59). Approach allows educators to define a larger ‘behavioral’ goal for a student and to break that goal down into sub-tasks. (Each sub- task should be defined in such a way that it can be scored as ‘successfully accomplished’ or ‘not accomplished’.) The constituent behaviors that make up the larger behavioral goal need not be directly related to each other. For example, ‘completed homework’ may include as sub-tasks ‘wrote down homework assignment correctly’ and ‘created a work plan before starting homework’ Source: Kazdin, A. E. (1989). Behavior modification in applied settings (4 th ed.). Pacific Gove, CA: Brooks/Cole..

Response to Intervention 47 Discrete Categorization Example: Math Study Skills General Academic Goal: Improve Tina’s Math Study Skills Tina was struggling in her mathematics course because of poor study skills. The RTI Team and math teacher analyzed Tina’s math study skills and decided that, to study effectively, she needed to:  Check her math notes daily for completeness.  Review her math notes daily.  Start her math homework in a structured school setting.  Use a highlighter and ‘margin notes’ to mark questions or areas of confusion in her notes or on the daily assignment.  Spend sufficient ‘seat time’ at home each day completing homework.  Regularly ask math questions of her teacher.

Response to Intervention 48 Discrete Categorization Example: Math Study Skills General Academic Goal: Improve Tina’s Math Study Skills The RTI Team—with teacher and student input—created the following intervention plan. The student Tina will:  Approach the teacher at the end of class for a copy of class note.  Check her daily math notes for completeness against a set of teacher notes in 5 th period study hall.  Review her math notes in 5 th period study hall.  Start her math homework in 5 th period study hall.  Use a highlighter and ‘margin notes’ to mark questions or areas of confusion in her notes or on the daily assignment.  Enter into her ‘homework log’ the amount of time spent that evening doing homework and noted any questions or areas of confusion.  Stop by the math teacher’s classroom during help periods (T & Th only) to ask highlighted questions (or to verify that Tina understood that week’s instructional content) and to review the homework log.

Response to Intervention 49 Discrete Categorization Example: Math Study Skills Academic Goal: Improve Tina’s Math Study Skills General measures of the success of this intervention include (1) rate of homework completion and (2) quiz & test grades. To measure treatment fidelity ( Tina’s follow-through with sub-tasks of the checklist), the following strategies are used :  Approached the teacher for copy of class notes. Teacher observation.  Checked her daily math notes for completeness; reviewed math notes, started math homework in 5 th period study hall. Student work products; random spot check by study hall supervisor.  Used a highlighter and ‘margin notes’ to mark questions or areas of confusion in her notes or on the daily assignment. Review of notes by teacher during T/Th drop-in period.  Entered into her ‘homework log’ the amount of time spent that evening doing homework and noted any questions or areas of confusion. Log reviewed by teacher during T/Th drop-in period.  Stopped by the math teacher’s classroom during help periods (T & Th only) to ask highlighted questions (or to verify that Tina understood that week’s instructional content). Teacher observation; student sign-in.

Response to Intervention 50 Assessment & Progress-Monitoring: Top 5 ‘To Do’ List Define key literacy skills to be assessed at each grade level: select an array of appropriate literacy measures. Hold ‘data meetings’ (K-8) with grade-level teachers or instructional teams soon after each schoolwide literacy screening to consider changes to core instruction, select students for Tier 2 interventions. Create a plan to conduct literacy-skills screening on all students three times per year (K-8) or to screen using archival data (9-12). Develop the capacity as needed to conduct more detailed diagnostic academic assessments of students picked up in schoolwide screenings. Ensure that your school has the capacity to monitor students on Tier 2 interventions 1-2 times per month; Tier 3 at least weekly.