Progress Monitoring and RtI: Questions from the Field Edward S. Shapiro Director, Center for Promoting Research to Practice Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

Progress Monitoring Role and RtI  Primary method of evaluating student outcomes of instructional intervention  Typical methods use General Outcomes Measurement  Most common is CBM  Establish expected rates of gain  Establish expected levels of performance  Outcomes used to establish response to intervention

Questions From the Field  What should be the expected level of improvement to set goals?  Are these measures linked to state assessments?  What do I use as a valid measure of reading beyond 5 th grade instructional level (and for those situations where ORF does not reflect reading performance)?  What do I use for PM in math?  What do I use for PM at middle and secondary levels?

PA – statewide effort to establish expected levels of performance for students with LD  3 year effort  Extensive training lead by PaTTAN and IU  Statewide data collection and reporting  Outcomes establish average rates of improvement across students with LD

Outcomes of PM in PA  1,963 special education students monitored  149 districts, 24 IU’s  LD = 1,502 (76.5%); SED = 88 (4.5%); MR = 223 (11.4%)  1,654 (84.3%) = reading; 599 = math computation (30.5%) ; 60 = math concepts (3.1%)  FOR LD: 1,277 Reading; 447 Math computation; 46 = math concepts

Comparison of PA PM to Fuchs Study in Reading-Instructional Level GradeFuchs Study Reg Ed All SpED Students 2004 – 2005 LD All SpED Students 2003 – 2004 LD 2003 –

Comparison of PA PM to Fuchs Study in Compute-Instructional Level GradeFuchs Study Reg Ed PDE BenchmarksAll SpED Students LD n/a

PM Conclusions from PA  Validated selection of expected rates of gain in reading  More data needed in math  Statewide impact of training in PM

How are these measures related to outcomes of state high stakes assessments?  State assessments are linked to curriculum standards  GOM measures, especially in reading, show strong predictions to state assessments Across states, correlations between.6 and.8 (over 15 states) Sensitivity/Specificity indices show very good true positive, true negative; values for false positive/false negative, not quite as good Measures meet expected standards for screening but may not be as desirable for high stakes decisions We may need to do better than screening level measures for these decisions

How are these measures related to outcomes of state high stakes assessments?  Research Need Examine degree to which additional measures beyond CBM contribute to improving prediction to state assessment Recent study by Compton et al. (Journal of Ed Psych) Balance additional measurement with unnecessary, over assessment

What do I use to measure reading beyond the 5 th grade instructional level?  ORF known to lose sensitivity to instructional change beyond 5 th grade instructional level  Skills in reading at this level require assessment of comprehension and critical thinking  Current GOM in reading comprehension (Maze), not been carefully evaluated for use at this level

What do I use to measure reading beyond the 5 th grade instructional level?  Research Needs Measurement tool needed that shows sensitivity to reading instruction at this level Measurement tool needs to have credibility with reading personnel Measurement tool needs to be efficient Late developing reading problems?

Progress Monitoring in Math: Can math be assessed using a GOM?  Early grades, multiple skill computational assessment appears to be adequate  Beyond early grades, computational assessment relationships to overall outcomes in math performance  Credibility problems – linkage to math curriculum is questioned, especially those using curricular such as Everyday Math  Use of Concepts/Applications progress monitoring partially addresses problem, but relationship to state assessment not as strong as reading (correlations in.5-.6 range)

Progress Monitoring in Math: Can math be assessed using a GOM?  Does math require a specific subskill mastery method of assessment? No validated metrics for progress monitoring at this time How will we establish response-to- intervention for math difficulties without GOM? What will we use to establish expected levels of performance and rates of gain?

What do we use for PM at middle and secondary school levels?  PM research efforts focused on elementary level and basic skill development  What validated measures do we have for middle and secondary school students experiencing academic skills problems?  Some initial work (Chris Espin & colleagues, Gerry Tindal & colleagues, Anne Foegen & colleagues, in math) in areas such as written language, algebra, but much more development needed

Positives about PM  Feasible to be used at elementary level  Statewide implementation and training is feasible  Strong GOM in reading (ORF) up through 5 th grade

Questions about PM  Credibility of GOM in reading beyond 5 th grade instructional level  PM in math remains significant question – GOM or SS  PM as SS – validated measures?  PM at middle and secondary level remains a question  Need to recognize the high stakes nature of the questions we are asked to answer using PM data