1. Investigating the Decision-Making of Response to Intervention (RtI) Teams Within the School Setting
Dr. Scott Thur
Dr. Kathleen Marshall
OSEP Project Directors’ Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 1

2. I. Nature and Significance of the Problem
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 2

3. A. Summary Review of Literature
Table 1: RtI Components
RtI Component
RtI Aspect
Sample Resources
Measures
and Tools
Assessment
Screening, CBM Monitoring
Curriculum / Intervention
Fuchs & Fuchs (2006)
Deno et al., (2009); Stuart & Rinaldi (2009)
Duhon et al. (2009); Wanzek & Cavanaugh (2012)
Data-Driven Decisions
Evidence-based practice
Determining risk
Tiers / Special Education
Gresham (2004)
Mellard et al. (2004); Gersten et al. (2009); VanDerHayden (2010)
Fuchs et al. (2012); Shapiro & Clemens (2009)
Process and Procedures
RtI model approach
Fidelity of implementation
Logistics and Resources
Fuchs et al. (2004); White, et al. (2010)
Glover & Diperna (2007); Keller-Margulis (2012)
Jenkins et al. (2013); Prewett et al. (2012)
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 3

4. B. Study’s Purpose There is a need to:
Determine the decision-making processes and influences of RtI teams within each of the three RtI areas.
A paucity of quantifiable data
Measure who serves on RtI teams, examine the multiple factors that impact their decision-making, and study whether involvement differs between team members within each of the three RtI areas.
Examine the decision-making between RtI team levels (i.e. elementary versus middle) to have a better understanding of differences in implementation.
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 4

5. Discussion Questions
In what ways will the data presented in this breakout session help to explain how and why the decisions that are made impact a school and district's RtI model?
How are certain types of RtI decisions related to a team member’s position and school level, and what are some targeted and constructive practices schools and districts can implement as a result?
Does a RtI team member's role on their team influence their decision-making, and how does that affect the purpose and effectiveness of the RtI process? 
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 5

6. II. Methodology OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

7. A. Overview of Study’s Procedures
Recruiting district participation
Recruiting school teams, personnel
Setting
5 South Carolina school districts
Participants
Core members of team – directly, consistently involved
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 7

8. B. Summary of Demographics
Participation Overview (in totals):
School districts = 5
Range of schools within districts (i.e. district size) = 3–35
School teams participating = 37
Surveys sent = 259
Surveys with discernable data = 178
Fully completed surveys = 135
Completion percentage = 52%
Demographic Aspects (range, mean)
Team Size: 2–25; 7.2
Years Serving on RtI team: 1–23; 3.6
RtI Experience (in years): 1–23; 5.6
Years in education: 1–46; 16.8
Schools’ RtI model (in years): 1–9; 2.3
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 8

9. C. Research Design
IV. Instrumentation - RtI Team Decision-Making Questionnaire
Survey Design
Electronic survey – Qualtrics © Survey Software
30 total questions – with sub-items
Likert-like responses
Open-ended response items
Multiple choice
Four sections:
Measures and Tools - 11 total questions
Data-Driven - 8 total questions
Process and Procedures - 11 total questions
General Demographics – 8 demographic questions
Section provided at end of survey
5 additional for RtI Leads
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 9

10. III. Results and Interpretation
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 10

11. A. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics – categorical data
measuring frequency and percentages
Inferential statistics – test of associations
Variable 1 – Level of Decision-Making Involvement within each aspect
Variable 2 - Team Member’s Position on the RtI team
Variable 3 – School Level
Fisher’s Exact Test with a Monte Carlo estimate approach (Variable 1, 2)
Confidence Interval (99% level)
Significance (p=.05)
Cramer’s V coefficient
Fisher’s Exact Test (Variable 1, 3)
Phi correlation coefficient
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 11

12. B. Findings and Interpretation
Influential factors (Team)
Using evidence-based practices most influential across all RtI areas
Greatest within Data-Driven Decisions (63.3%)
Pressure from parents is the least influential across all RtI areas (only 2-3%)
Pressure from teammates is not a significant team influence
Comparison differences within Process and Procedures
Pressure from teammates, school position, role on team
Amount of time spent making Data-Driven Decisions
Majority of time spent making Data-Driven decisions (>31 minutes)
Least time spent making Measures and Tools decisions (<15 minutes)
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

13. B. Findings and Interpretation (2)
Influential factors (Personal)
Using evidence-based practices most influential across all 3 areas
Greatest within Data-Driven decisions (66%)
Pressure from parents had the least amount of influence (<2%)
There were distinct, area-specific influences that impacted
team member’s personal decision-making:
District mandates (29% for Measures and Tools, 13% for Process and Procedures)
School culture – specific to Process and Procedures (15.1%)
Incorporating previous experiences – specific to Measures and Tools
Considering and analyzing multiple and varied data sources (29% for Data Driven).
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

14. B. Findings and Interpretation (3)
Tier involvement, Team v. Personal
Greatest amount of team members - Tier 2 decisions (75.3%-90%)
Least amount of team members - Tier 1 decisions (63% - 69%).
The greatest amount of on-going, informative feedback – Tier 2 decisions (79% %)
Least amount of feedback in tier 1 decisions (66.2% %)
Tier 3 roughly 10% greater than tier 1
Comparison data:
Team versus Personal
Generally slightly greater degree of influence with teams as
compared to personal across areas
Most pronounced within Measures and Tools
Between RtI areas
Greatest amount of team members - Data-Driven Decisions
Evidence-based practices
Least involved with decisions - Measures and Tools
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

15. B. Findings and Interpretation (4)
Influence based on perception of position
Team members associate their position to be the greatest with providing consistent, continued feedback and follow-up.
Application of the results
There appears to be many decisions within Measures and Tools that are one-time decisions, and so follow-up is not applicable.
Particular personnel are more responsible for the decisions across RtI areas and tiers than others.
Administrators, leads, and coaches
Some types of decisions seem to be mandated to teams without room for them to deviate.
District mandates within Measures and Tools
If there are limited resources, teams seem to focus on tier 2, Data-Driven Decisions.
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

16. B. Findings and Interpretation (5)
Level of involvement in decision-making aspects
There are clear and distinct aspects that team member‘s are and are not involved in.
Entire teams do not collectively make all decisions.
A large majority of all team members clearly spend the greatest amount of their time making Data-Driven Decisions.
Process and Procedures – least overall
The data clearly shows that only a few individuals are generally involved making certain types of decisions, and that some decisions are beyond the control of the school team level.
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

17. B. Findings and Interpretation (6)
Level of involvement based on position
Many significant associations between position and involvement.
Specific position-dependent decisions are made in each area.
Administrators, leads, coaches / interventionists
All aspects of Measures and Tools are dependent on position, and most are for Data-Driven and Process and Procedures. Top aspects:
Deciding, planning which SW curriculum to implement
Determining students’ ROI for movement between tiers
Determining the locations of the intervention
Lack of significant associations for some aspects:
Determining student responsiveness to intervention
Selecting number of tiers; selecting model type
Reasons for independence:
Large majority and/or extremely select few
Prescribed, standardized manner (i.e. less variation)
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

18. B. Findings and Interpretation (7)
Involvement based on school level
School level appears to affect some types of decisions. Examples:
Measures and Tools – Determining Screening Instruments
(elementary % v. middle %)
Process and Procedures – Analyzing Fidelity of
Implementation (elementary – 53.4% v. middle – 87.5%)
Supports previous research
Sources of data (Burns, 2008; Shapiro & Clemens, 2009)
Middle level logistics, focus (Dulaney, 2012; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012)
Universal screenings - Vaughn & Fletcher (2010)
Fidelity of implementation
Processes established
Variation between programs
Priority of school teams
Data-Driven Decisions
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

19. IV. Implications OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 201619

20. OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
A. Limitations
Less than intended sample size
There were only eight total middle school participants
Data collected was exclusively from my survey
At least one RtI Lead indicated on the survey that their school was within its first year in RtI
South Carolina only – differences with other states?
5 school districts
Generalizable with other types of models
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

21. OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
B. Implications
I. Future Research
District level of involvement and influence in decision-making within their schools’ RtI model
mandates and policies to schools and teams.
Involvement on school teams
State mandates; district variation
Team members’ understanding of evidence-based practices.
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

22. OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
B. Implications (2)
II. Practical
Teams can more efficiently allocate time and resources
targeted district involvement
professional development
Certain decisions are dependent on position
Increasing additional perspectives and feedback
Explain how and why decisions are actually made in an RtI school.
emphasis and priority
planned sharing of responsibility
Develop strategies to address specific team needs
team functioning, members’ understandings and awareness
allows for enhanced team functioning
district support, feedback, guidance
School level differences – function, purpose, goals
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016

23. Discussion Questions (2)
In what ways will the data presented in this breakout session help to explain how and why the decisions that are made impact a school and district's RtI model?
How are certain types of RtI decisions related to a team member’s position and school level, and what are some targeted and constructive practices schools and districts can implement as a result?
Does a RtI team member's role on their team influence their decision-making, and how does that affect the purpose and effectiveness of the RtI process? 
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016
OSEP Project Directors' Conference, 2016 23