1. How To Do Classwide Intervention within RTI
Amanda VanDerHeyden
Education Research and Consulting, Inc.

2. Objectives Today
Overview of RTI, RTI decision making, and expected outcomes
Specific How-To for Classwide Math Intervention
Implementing intervention for sustenance and system change

5. Disparities in Achievement
Substantially lower level of performance in Reading at first and second grades for African-American students relative to their Caucasian peers (approximately 20 wc/min)
Slower growth rate (approximately half) at both grade levels
Differences not observed in Math

6. In Low-Achieving Classrooms (more than 50% of class scored in the frustrational range on probes)
STEEP
Teacher Referral
Sensitivity
.75
.55
Specificity
.88
.68
Positive Predictive Power
.69
.35
Negative Predictive Power
.91
.82
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005

7. In Average to High-Achieving Classrooms (less than 20% of class scored in frustrational range on probes)
STEEP
Teacher Referral
Sensitivity
.67
Specificity
1.0
Positive Predictive Power
Negative Predictive Power
.97
.95
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005

8. % Accurate ID by Race Minority Caucasian STEEP 90 86 Teacher Referral78 61
Use of RTI with STEEP approximated base rate by race and gender
AA students showed a disproportionate RTI (.50 versus .07)
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005

9. Research Finding VanDerHeyden, Broussard, et al. (2004).
Prior to single instructional session, children receiving special ed services were significantly lower performing on math probes. Following single instructional session, no significant difference was observed.

10. Mixed Mult/Div/Fractions Probe Classroom F
Alert that I will show more later about tracking progress toward mastery of standards

11. Sore Thumb Test

12. Response to Classwide Intervention
Student A

13. Individual Math Intervention Can’t Do Problem

14. Successful Math Intervention
Baseline
Intervention
Novel, grade-level probe

15. Why do Classwide Intervention
Efficiency
Accuracy
Efficacy

16. Screening to Enhance Educational Progress
STEEP Model
Screening to Enhance Educational Progress

17. Tier 1: Screening Screening Math Screening Writing Screening
2 minutes. Scored for Digits Correct
Writing Screening
3 Minutes. Scored for Words Written Correctly
Reading Screening
1 Minute. Scored for Words Read Correctly

18. Class-wide Screening

19. Feedback to Teachers

20. Tier 2: Class-wide Intervention

21. No Class-wide Problem Detected

22. Tier 2: Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment
3-7 minutes per child
“Can’t Do/Won’t Do”
Individually-administered
Materials
Academic material that student performed poorly during class assessment.
Treasure chest: plastic box filled with tangible items.

23. Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment

24. Decision Rule Following Can’t Do/Won’t Do Assessment

25. Tier 3: Individual Intervention

26. Response to Intervention
Before Intervention
During Intervention
#Correct
Avg. for his Class
Each Dot is one Day of Intervention
Intervention Sessions
Intervention in Reading

27. Response to Intervention
Before Intervention
During Intervention
#Correct
15 minutes to this point to set-up steep
Avg. for his Class

28. Vehicle for System Change: System-wide Math Problem
Instructional range
Frustrational range
Each bar is a student’s performance

29. Re-screening Indicates No Systemic Problem
Fourth Grade

30. Rest of Grade at Standard
Classroom A B C D E F

31. Spring 2003– Classroom F F

32. Teacher moved to lower grade in Fall 2003

33. Class-wide Intervention
Teacher F Mult 0-12
120
100 80
Digits Correct Two Minutes 60 40 20
10/24/2003
10/31/2003
11/7/2003
11/14/2003
11/18/2003
Weeks

34. Increased Difficulty- Intervention Continues

35. Mixed Mult/Div/Fractions Probe Classroom F
Alert that I will show more later about tracking progress toward mastery of standards

36. Growth Obtained
actual growth
aimline

37. Effect on High-Stakes Scores
VanDerHeyden, in prep

38. Effect on High-Stakes Scores
VanDerHeyden, in prep

39. District-wide Implementation Data
Vail Unified School District
Three years, system-wide implementation of STEEP grades 1-8

40. System Outcomes Referrals reduced greater than half
% who qualify from 50% stable baseline over three years to nearly 100%
SLD down from 6% of children in district in (with baseline upward trend) to 3.5% in school year
Corresponding gains on high-stakes tests (VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2005)
Intervention successful for about 95 to 98% of children screened
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007

41. Cost Reduction VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007
For schools 1 and 2 for which there were baseline and implementation data.
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007

42. Findings
Number of Evaluations dramatically reduced– 70% at highest referral school
Diverse settings, psychologists of diverse backgrounds and no prior experience with CBM or functional academic assessment
Percentage qualify increased at 4 of 5 schools
Disproportionate representation of males positively affected
Number of children placed dramatically reduced
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007

43. Team Decision-Making Agreement
RTI + and Evaluated
RTI- and Did Not Evaluate
(3 schools)
100%
41%
(5 schools)
87%
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007

44. Team Decision-Making VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007
1Counting only those children for whom STEEP data had been completed, 9 children were recommended for evaluation by STEEP. All 9 were subsequently recommended for evaluation by the decision-making team and 8 of these children qualified for services. 2However, 17 children were not recommended for evaluation at the team decision-making meeting based on STEEP findings, but the teams decided to evaluate 10 of these children anyway. Specifically, 3 children qualified under SLD, 1 qualified under Speech and Language Impairment, and 1 qualified under Other Health Impairment.
3In , 14 children were recommended for evaluation by STEEP. Of these 14 children, 12 were evaluated and 7 qualified for services, 1 did not qualify, and 4 cases were pending at study completion.
4106 cases were not recommended for evaluation based on their having had an adequate RTI. The team decided to evaluate 14 of these children anyway. Of these 14 children evaluated, 29% of children qualified for services, 64% did not, and 1 case was pending at the completion of this study.
VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007

45. Fall to Spring Reading Growth
Second grade data shown here. First was similar (minority slope roughly half of that of caucasian). No differences observed in math
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005

46. What Proportion of Ethnicity Represented Before and After Intervention in Risk Category?
Numbers are: 18/56 for minority (18 minority in bottom 16% on probes of 56 possible minority cases) and 14/154 caucasian before intervention
4/56 for minority and 9/154 for caucasian after intervention
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005

47. Identification Accuracy
High-achieving classrooms (<20%)
Procedures paired with RTI criterion were more accurate than other commonly used screening devices
Low-achieving classrooms (>50%)
VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005

48. “Weighing a cow doesn’t make it fatter.”

49. Break

50. Using Screening Data to Identify Class-wide and System-wide Instructional Problems

51. Consider The Task Integrity of Administration Reliability of Scoring
Use software to organize the data

52. Mult 0-9 4th Grade Fall Screening

53. Mult/Div/Fractions 4th Grade Winter

54. Grade-wide Data

57. 3rd Grade Mult 0-9 Spring

58. Guided Practice

59. Fourth Grade Reading Level: Math Skill 1: Math Skill 2:
Guide audience to pick the skill

60. Questions Is there a classwide problem? Is there a gradewide problem?
What’s the most efficient way to deliver intervention?

65. What Data do you Want for Principal?

69. Questions Is there a classwide problem? Is there a gradewide problem?
What’s the most efficient way to deliver intervention?

70. Independent Practice

71. First Grade Reading What do you want to know?
Is there a class-wide problem?
Is there a grade-wide or systemic problem?
What’s the most efficient way to deliver intervention? (whole class, small group, individual)
What is the next step for Class 1, 2, 3, 4?

72. Class 1

73. Class 2

74. Class 3

75. Class 4
Growth trajectory basis for 1st grade. Have to select a “criterion” to use at your site. The closer the median score is to the instructional minimum, the more work for the school psychologist!

76. Grade-wide Data

78. Class 4

79. Screening tells you How is the core instruction working?
What problems might exist that could be addressed?
Most bang-for-the-buck activity
Next most high-yield activity is classwide intervention at Tier 2.

80. Screening Guidelines
Efforts at Tier 1 pay off with fewer children needing individual intervention
3 times per year, single probe
Use small team of trained coaches
Prepare all needed materials in a packet for each teacher
Score and return within 1 week on graph
Use data to generate aimlines, can be used to set benchmarks

81. Digits Correct Two Minutes
Pass the AIMS
Digits Correct Two Minutes
You can do this with CBM. This cannot be accomplished with periodic benchmark assessments with set numbers of items and ceilings and scoring format of multiple choice 1 12
Weeks

82. Students Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Dave Tilly, 2005 Any
Curriculum
Area
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
Individual Students
Assessment-based
High Intensity
Of longer duration
Intensive, Individual Interventions
Individual Students
Assessment-based
Intense, durable procedures
1-5%
1-5%
5-10%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
Some students (at-risk)
High efficiency
Rapid response
Targeted Group Interventions
Some students (at-risk)
High efficiency
Rapid response
Students
Universal Interventions
All students
Preventive, proactive
80-90%
80-90%
Universal Interventions
All settings, all students
Preventive, proactive
Dave Tilly, 2005

83. Class-wide Intervention
Use pair-peered practice (classwide peer tutoring, PALS)
Model, Guided Practice, Independent timed practice with delayed error correction, reward contingency

84. Team recommends intervention.
Unsupported means….
Team recommends intervention.
All materials have to be created from scratch
Teachers sent to organize class and train
No one may be an expert to help the teacher
No or not enough frequent objective data to collect or interpret

85. With teacher support Consider time, resources, materials
Remove skill barriers with
classroom training for students
classroom coaching for teachers
Remove implementation barriers after use new steps
follow-up supportive meetings to problem solve.
frequent acknowledgment of a teacher’s efforts

86. Won’t do No reinforcement for teacher behaviors
Address Common Reasons for Resistance
Time consuming
Lack of materials
Can’t Do
prevents
prevents
No teacher change
No child change
Complex not yet fluent
prevents
avoidance
prevents
Poor management
prevents
Too much work
Won’t do No reinforcement for teacher behaviors

87. Select a Few Good Interventions to Keep it Simple
Classwide
Individual
Math
Flash card Practice
Cover copy compare
Cue Cards
Highlighted errors
Reading
Listening Preview
Repeated Readings
Error Correction
Key Words

88. Prepare for Training Day
Locate probes (e.g., worksheet factory, intervention central, basic skill builders)
Identify Graphing Program (excel)
Locate or develop scripts (gosbr.net; interventioncentral.org)
Develop quick access to materials for teachers
Determine integrity monitoring plan
Identify common time for intervention
Set start date

89. Set a daily routine.
Time, location of materials,
process for weekly assessment.
Set a date and time for 30-min training
Set a date for a later 15-minute first practice time with teacher

90. Materials needed Computer and software to organize data
Student data imported. Clerical person to enter data on-site for tier 1 screen only.
Color printer to print graphs + extra color cartridges
Probe materials, digital count-down timers
Intervention protocols, intervention materials (e.g., flashcard sets, reading materials)
Access to copier and some assistance with copying
Reinforcers for treasure chest (no more than $500 per school)

91. Usually the higher-level reader, reads (models) first.
Rotating high –level readers helps maintain motivation

92. How-To Classwide Math

95. Intervention Plan- 15 Min per Day
Protocol-based classwide peer tutoring, randomized integrity checks by direct observation
Model, Guide Practice, Independent Timed Practice with delayed error correction
Group performance contingency
Teachers encouraged to
Scan papers for high error rates
Do 5-min re-teach for those with high-error rates
Provide applied practice using mastery-level computational skill

96. Measurement Plan Weekly probe of Intervention skill
Weekly probe of Retention of previously mastered computational skills
Monthly probe using GOM approach to monitor progress toward year-end computational goals
To this you might add an application measure

97. Sample Sequence

98. Intervention Plan
Class Median reaches mastery range for skill, next skill is introduced
Following promising results at one site in , lead to implementation district-wide grades 1-8 for all children by

99. Instructional Hierarchy
Finally, problem-solving/ application practice should occur here with a mastery level skill– Core Instruction- Not Manipulated but could be
Generalization
But fluency building should happen here with an instructional level skill– Intervention Focus was here
Fluency
To gain the steepest growth, introduction of new skills should happen here– Core Instruction- Not manipulated
Acquisition

100. Class-wide Math Intervention

101. ..\..\Math Assessment 04_05\Skill Sequence 04-05.doc

102. ..\..\Math Assessment 04_05\Data\FINAL 04--05\Cottonwood 5-27.xls

103. Rationale Provided teacher/student a script that tells….
what the student has to do and when
what the teacher should do to support student
how the student will know how he/she is doing
Treatment considerations for integrity issues
All steps are clearly needed
Includes lots of student response opportunities
Disrupts class as little as possible
Requires little teacher time ( < 15 min/day)
Considers resources to decrease teacher effort
Used simple language
All the materials are available

104. Trainer
Observe the teacher using the steps
on the intervention script
2. Check off steps used.
3. Prompt the teacher to do any missed step .
4. Problem Solve any noted “blockers”
5. Continue until accurately implemented without prompts

105. Why verbal and modeling training alone do not work:
No instructions when problems arise
In adequate classroom management
prevents
interferes
Low implementation
Not enough child assistance for bx change
Non-specific
steps
prevents
prevents
Inadequate materials
interferes
Low frequencies
Lack of practice with feedback
Lack of reinforcement
For teacher behaviors

106. Math Partners Progress Chart
Count every digit that is not circled. This is your score!
Write your score on your math sheet.
Find today’s date on this page and write your score on the line.
Put a Star on the graph to mark today’s score.

107. Weekly Progress Monitoring
Administer classwide math worksheet
Target skill once per week
Criterion skills periodically to monitor growth
Use incentives to maximize performance
Apply decision rules

108. Progress Review
Review folders to ensure that intervention was used correctly for at least 4 days that week
If this is not the case, conduct another in-class training day.
Graph weekly progress monitoring assessment data

109. Decision making Review data to make decisions:
DATA OUTCOME 1: Class median is below mastery range and most students gaining digits correct per week.
ACTION: Consider implementing intervention for an additional week and then review progress again.

110. Decision making
DATA OUTCOME 2: Class median is below mastery range and most students are not gaining digits correct per week: ACTION: Check Integrity first and address with training if needed. Consider implementing intervention for an additional week with incentives or easier task and then review progress again.

111. Decision making
DATA OUTCOME 3: If the class median is above mastery range then consider:
ACTION: Increasing task difficulty and continuing classwide intervention.  
ACTION: For students performing in the frustration range, consider Tier 3 assessment and intervention.

112. Training Package Rational Step by step protocol Model Train students
Tell
Rational
Step by step protocol
Show
Model Do
Train students
Implement with guided practice
Implement independently with support

113. > 80% of interventions are not used
without support

114. Troubleshoot Intervention Support Yes No
Was the intervention developed to ensure that it required minimal classroom time and resources and fit within daily classroom routines?
Are materials readily available to the teacher?
Was a step-by-step “coach card” provided?
Was the teacher shown how to implement the intervention by a “coach?”
Did the coach observe implementation of the intervention to ensure that the teacher could use the intervention correctly and had all needed materials?
Was weekly follow-up support provided to the teacher after initial training?
Are integrity data graphed to show used correctly?
Is an administrator involved?

115. Results

116. Tier 1 Screening Indicates Class-wide Problem

117. Tier 2: Class-wide Intervention
Teacher F Mult 0-12
120
100 80
Digits Correct Two Minutes 60 40 20
10/24/2003
10/31/2003
11/7/2003
11/14/2003
11/18/2003
Weeks

118. Increased Difficulty- Intervention Continues

119. Contextually-Relevant Comparisons and Use of Trend Data

120. 5th Grade Math Intervention

122. Pre-post changes to performance detected by CBM
Instructional range
Frustrational range
Each bar is a student’s performance

123. Fourth Grade

124. Effect on SAT-9 Performance
Stronger effects for grade 3 relative to 4 and 5.

125. Effect on CBM Scores

126. Computation Gains Generalized to High Stakes Test Improvements (Gains within Multiple Baseline shown as pre-post data)

127. Gains within Multiple Baseline (shown as pre-post data)

128. Additional Research Questions
What level of performance predicted strongest subsequent growth given intervention?
What level of performance predicted skill would be retained about 3 months after it was taught?
Did mastery of foundation skills shorten the number of trials required to master more complex related skills?

129. What level of performance predicted strongest subsequent growth given intervention?
Across 4 weeks of intervention (4 datapoints) OLS used to estimate slope
Children achieving slopes equal to or greater than the 66th percentile were identified as strong responders
Starting fluency (prior to intervention) was identified for the group of strong responders and range was estimated as average starting fluency +/- 1 standard deviation
Tested new criterion on second set of scores
Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006

130. New Range Digits Correct/Min Reliability (tau) Validity (rho) Frus
Inst
Mast
2nd-3rd
14-31
.35
.08
22%
70% 8%
4th-5th
24-49
.63
.50
67%
11%
2nd- 3rd
1.77
2.01
1.55
4th- 5th
1.16
1.44
1.25
Delayed alternate-form reliability was estimated for the new categorical criteria by correlating (Kendall’s tau) the categories from the two probes, and these categorical data were also correlated (Spearman’s rho) with the continuous data from the SAT-9 mathematics standard scores to estimate criterion-related validity. The reliability coefficients were .35 and .63 for the two grade groups, and .51 for the total sample. Percent agreement was again computed and resulted in 69.0% agreement for second and third graders and 92.4% for fourth and fifth graders. Validity coefficients were .08 and .49 for the grade groups, and .27 for the total sample. Thus, again students in the fourth and fifth grades had higher coefficients than those in second and third grades.

131. General Findings
Growth rates and trials to criterion varied dramatically across skills
Retention probe was strongest predictor of year-end SAT-9 performance
Mastery level performance on early skills predicted fewer trials to criterion on future related complex skills
Fluency scores higher than “mastery” predicted retention of skill over time (about +20 dc/min)
VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2008; VanDerHeyden & Burns, in submission

132. Identification Accuracy
CBA + RTI Criterion
ITBS
WJ-R
STEEP
Sensitivity
.76 1
.58
Specificity
.89
.99
.77
Positive Predictive Power
.59
.67
.44
Negative Predictive Power
.95
.86
Teacher Referral
.46
.33
.42
.69
.94
.85
.19
.17
.45
.97
.83
VanDerHeyden, et al., 2003

133. Percent Identified at each Tier
CBM (Classwide Assessment)
55 (15%)
CBM + Reward (Performance/skill Deficit Assessment)
40 (11%)
CBM + Reward + Instruction
(STEEP +)
22 (6%)
Teacher Referral
32 (19%)
CIBS-R
64 (18%)
DRA
17 (9%)
RTI Criterion Assessment
17 (5%)
WJ-R 12
ITBS deficit
3 (4%)
VanDerHeyden, et al., 2003

134. Students Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Dave Tilly, 2005 Any
Curriculum
Area
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
Individual Students
Assessment-based
High Intensity
Of longer duration
Intensive, Individual Interventions
Individual Students
Assessment-based
Intense, durable procedures
1-5%
1-5%
5-10%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
Some students (at-risk)
High efficiency
Rapid response
Targeted Group Interventions
Some students (at-risk)
High efficiency
Rapid response
Students
Universal Interventions
All students
Preventive, proactive
80-90%
80-90%
Universal Interventions
All settings, all students
Preventive, proactive
Dave Tilly, 2005

135. To work smart, we must ask
What is the purpose of our assessment?
How do we know it serves our purpose?
Is this the cheapest way to do it?

136. Our Goal
Collect the best information in the shortest possible period of time

137. Tier 3 Assessment Data Same implementation support as Tier 2
Instructional level performance
Error analysis (high errors, low errors, pattern)
Effect of incentives, practice, easier task
Verify intervention effect
Same implementation support as Tier 2
Instructional-level materials; Criterion-level materials

138. Tier 3 Implement for 5-15 consecutive sessions with 100% integrity
Link to referral decision
Weekly graphs to teacher and weekly generalization probes outside of classroom, supply new materials
Troubleshoot implementation weekly

139. Strategy in a Nutshell Identify the goal (DV’s)
Behavior to increase (fluency, comprehension)
Behavior to decrease (errors)
Match the strategy to the goal (Daly et al., 1996)
Monitor the DV’s and the IV’s (intervention variables)

140. Find instructional level (sampling back)
Identify the “root” of the problem (e.g., division is difficult because subtraction is not fluent or multiplication is not fluent; poor decoding skills v. dolce words; production v. accuracy in writing)
This is the most important part of the process

141. Define the Behaviors/skills
Pronounce beginning word sounds
Define the Behaviors/skills
Fluent Letter Sound Production
Accurate Letter Sound Production
Association of Letters with phonemes
Fluent Letter Naming
Accurate Letter Naming

142. Other Sample Hierarchies
Reading 5th Grade, 2nd Semester
Reading 5th grade, 1st semester
Reading 4th grade, 2nd semester
Reading 4th grade, 1st semester
Reading 3rd grade, 2nd semester
Math 2nd Grade
Subtraction 0-9
Addition 0-18
Addition 0-9

143. Identify Reinforcers and Logical Consequences
Use a treasure chest
Use an activity survey or reinforcer checklist
Use incidental teaching strategy
Use logical or natural consequences

144. Measure Baseline Performance and Set Goals

145. This is the Instructional Hierarchy
Finally, problem-solving/ application practice should occur here with a mastery level skill
Generalization
But fluency building should happen here with an instructional level skill
Fluency
To gain the steepest growth, introduction of new skills should happen here
Acquisition

146. Functional Assessment
What is an effective intervention?

147. Functional Assessment

148. Functional AssessmentBL
Intervention
Performance Feedback

149. Troubleshooting Intervention Effects at Tier 3

150. Teachers must weigh the following
What outcomes does completing work produce?
Positive feedback from the teacher
Positive attention from peers, status
Access to fun activities or reinforcement
Avoidance of punitive consequences
What outcomes does not completing work produce?
Escape from assignment, from classroom setting
Peer attention
Adult attention (even if it is negative). Some students are so motivated to obtain adult attention that it does not matter if the attention is negative or positive.

151. Antecedent Variables Task Difficulty, Sequencing of Skills
Time actively engaged in learning (AET)
Opportunities to respond
Other lesson variables (pacing, exemplars)
Behaviors interfering with instruction (teacher and child)

152. Task Difficulty, Sequencing
Sample back measuring fluency of performance on basic skills
The idea is to identify the weak point in the chain
Define the target skill for intervention and the criterion skill (goal)

153. Academic Engaged Time Impacts opportunities to respond
Robust predictor of achievement
Average 2nd grader (Rosenshine) spent less than 1 hour AET per day.
Check transitions, classroom management, time allocated for independent practice, active monitoring/scanning

154. Other Lesson Variables
Presentation of materials and Sequencing of Lesson
Organized
Clear, redundant examples
Exemplars sufficient
S+ and S-
Checking for student understanding
Pacing of lesson

155. Behaviors Interfering with Instruction/Intervention
Teacher behaviors
Implementation accuracy and consistency
Fuchs & Fuchs, 1987; Gresham, 1991; Happe, 1982; Wickstrom, Jones, LaFleur, & Witt, 1998
Teacher understanding/adequately trained
Train to fluency criterion (Chandler, Lubeck, & Fowler, 1992)
Teacher acceptability of intervention (prospective, ongoing, link to changes)
Adequate resources to conduct intervention

156. Behaviors Interfering with Instruction
Child behaviors
Disruptive or inattentive behaviors
Concurrent options available (access to reinforcing outcomes by not completing intervention)
Consider can’t do/won’t do (although programming for motivation is important anyway)

157. Consequences
Reinforcing consequences (for correct and incorrect performance)
Escaping task
Extra attention (staying in at recess may be reinforcing)
Feedback
Frequency
Immediacy
Accuracy
Correct error immediately, have student repeat response correctly, match response to instructional situation & learner (Heubusch & Lloyd, 1998)

158. Tier 3 Intervention
>5% of children screened (total population) IF solid Tier 1
Possibly as low as 2% IF solid Tier 1 and Tier 2
About 1-2% failed RTI; 10% of most at-risk
VanDerHeyden et al., 2007

159. Tier 3 Findings Most interventions for reading Math is next
Math is at least two-dimensional--- computational and operational fluency plus application or conceptual understanding
Most interventions are not implemented well and that’s why they fail
Tier 3 interventions are likely to occur on below grade level tasks AND require acquisition-type instruction (discrimination training to establish accurate responding)

160. Successful Math Intervention

161. Unsuccessful Math Intervention

162. Integrity Matters
59% Integ
96% Integrity

163. Integrity Matters

164. Integrity Matters

165. Integrity
Untreated integrity problems become student learning deficits, schoolwide learning problems, and false positive decision errors
Integ problems affect dose and quality of the treatment (an intervention implemented with fidelity is a functionally different intervention than one implemented inconsistently
Integ positively correlated with student learning gains, amount of intervention covered
Even veteran sites require monitoring and follow-up

166. Tips for Effective Implementation

167. Our Recipe for Intervention Success
PREPARATION
Identify and Use standard protocols for intervention
Develop all needed materials
Develop packets or put on a central web site
Determine graphing program
167

168. Our Recipe for Intervention Success
TRAIN
Explain
Watch the teacher do it with the actual child before you leave
Call or meet teacher after first day to problem solve
168

169. Our Recipe for Intervention Success
DATA COLLECTION AND SUPPORT
Each week, graph intervention performance and do a generalization check with the child.
Graphed feedback to teachers with generalization checks for individual intervention once per week
Response-dependent performance feedback to sustain implementation accuracy
Monthly CBM to track growth and enhance existing Tier 1 Programs or advise new Tier 1
Data to principal weekly. Summarize effects and integrity of procedures.
169

170. Our Recipe for Intervention Success
DATA DECISION -MAKING
RTI successful if child performs criterion-level probe (from screening) in the instructional range. RTI unsuccessful if 15 consecutive intervention sessions and criterion probe is not in the instructional range.
Increase task difficulty for intervention if child scores at mastery on task during intervention sessions
170

171. Guidelines for Implementers
Use single trial scores for screening
Following screening, grade-wide graphs to principal
Return data to teachers within 48 hours with personal interpretation at grade-level team meeting
Include principal in critical meetings
Involve teachers at all stages
171

172. Guidelines for Implementers
Learn about curriculum and instruction.
Integrate RTI with ongoing school and system reform efforts
Thoughtfully merge to subtract duplicate activities and to enhance more comprehensive supplemental and core instructional support activities that may be in place
Use RTI data to evaluate the value of ALL instructional programs or resource allocation decisions. Quantify bang for the buck using student performance data.

173. Infrastructure for Implementation
Grade-level planning periods can be utilized
Special education “team” at school can be utilized
School Psych must be on-site 1 day/week
Developing master schedule for Tier 1, 2, and 3 intervention times is useful
Integrate efforts with evaluation referral team efforts (consider major reduction in meeting time and shift to intervention efforts!)
Use existing instructional periods to target student needs more effectively
See NASDSE blueprint for implementation
Brown-Chidsey book coming from Guilford

174. For More Information amandavande@gmail.com www.isteep.com
Thank you to the US Dept of Education for providing all film clips shown in this presentation
174