RTI in 2005 Understanding/Diagnosing Reading Disabilities within a RTI Model Marilyn Korth, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District Tricia Hamlin, Southern Cayuga Central School District Amanda Miller, Saint.
Download
Report
Transcript RTI in 2005 Understanding/Diagnosing Reading Disabilities within a RTI Model Marilyn Korth, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District Tricia Hamlin, Southern Cayuga Central School District Amanda Miller, Saint.
RTI in 2005
Understanding/Diagnosing Reading
Disabilities within a RTI Model
Marilyn Korth, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District
Tricia Hamlin, Southern Cayuga Central School District
Amanda Miller, Saint Catherine’s Center for Children
Karrie Clark, Carthage School District
&
James McDougal, PsyD
State University of New York at Oswego
[email protected]
LD Within an RTI Model
AGENDA
Brief history of Special
Education: how it has
influenced our practice
Critiques of traditional
assessment practices
Contemporary
Approaches- Early
Literacy to Literacy
1975, PL 94-142
Provided educational rights and goals for
children previously underserved or excluded
Solidified the dominant place of Special
Education in School Psychology
Discrepancy based model influenced
assessment practices
Characteristics of the “Traditional
Assessment Practices”
Medical model, deficit
oriented, child centered
One at a time focus
“Wait to fail”
“Refer-test- place”
Heavy on diagnosis light
on cure
“Correlation approach”
Surveys of our SPs role
50-55% of time in
traditional assessment
20% direct intervention
17% in consultation
(problem solving)
6% systems level
consultation
2% PE and R
Fagan & Wise, 2000, Reschly, 2000,
Related to Traditional
Assessment?
Inconsistencies in
Identification
1988 27 % of identified
children in Utah were ED,
the ED rate in CA was
2.5 % of identified
children
Forness & Kavale, 1990
Huge Increases in
Identification
From 1976 to 2002 the
classification of children
with specific learning
disabilities increased
300%
President’s Commission on
Excellence in Special Education
July 1, 2002
Related to the Traditional
Model?
Reading Failure
80% of of those with
SLD (40% of all Sp
Ed students) are
there because they
haven’t learned how
to read
Cultural Bias
African American
students are twice as
likely as whites to be
labeled MR and 50%
more likely to be
designated as
emotionally disturbed
(A New Era 2002)
Related to the Traditional
Model?
6 million children
currently in special
education
Federal funding is 8.5
billion dollars
Placement in special
education programs
most often result in
little gain or negative
outcomes
(A New Era 2002)
The Link to LD Assessment:
Past and Future
Discrepancy based
procedures
Problems with these models
A new approach
LD Assessment: Past & Future
The Ghost of LD PAST
Definitional
Concerns
What is LD?
What isn’t LD?
Discrepancy based
models
Wait to fail
The Promise of LD
Future
A New
Era
Preventative approach
Validated Models
Response to
Intervention
NY Learning Disability Definition 1997
A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, which manifests
itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The
term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps,
brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The
term does not include students who have learning
problems which are primarily the result of visual,
hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of
emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or
economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a
discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected
achievement and actual achievement determined on an
individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning
IDEA's Definition of Learning Disability
". . . a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations, including conditions such as
perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia."
However, learning disabilities do not include, "…learning
problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or
motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional
disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage."
Example of State Requirements for LD Diagnosis
Achievement Intelligence
Discrepancy
Severe Discrepancy Determination by Formula
Kate obtains an IQ score of 90 and an achievement score of 74. Is
this 16-point difference large enough to be considered a ‘significant
difference’ between ability and achievement?
Data:
Ability Score ………………………………………………... 90
Reliability of Ability Score ……………………………. … 0.91
Achievement Score ……………………………………….. 74
Achievement Reliability ………………………………….. 0.91
Correlation Between Ability and Achievement Scores .. 0.47
Methods for Determining Severe Discrepancy
Deviation from Grade Level
Standard Deviation from the Mean
Standard Score Comparison
Regression Formula
In our example of Kate she would be LD with the
first 3 methods but not with the 4th.
Reliability concerns
Determination of LD Diagnosis is based in
part on:
State
determinations of severe discrepancy
method of calculating severe discrepancy
Different methods of calculating a
discrepancy will result in different students
being classified
Validity
Learning disability is result of unexpected
low achievement.
Also implies that children with unexpected
low achievement (LD) are distinct from
expected low achievement (i.e., low
achievement and low intelligence).
Validity
Validity of construct relies on its
uniqueness and utility
Validity of a discrepancy based model
assumes that ability-achievement
discrepant children are qualitatively
distinct from regular “low achievers”.
Also assumes that identifying LD will lead
to useful interventions specific to that
group.
Assessing Validity of LD
Fletcher et al. (2001) describe means of
validating LD diagnosis
Prognosis
Response
Distinct
to intervention
cognitive profiles
Cognitive Domains
Meta-Analysis
Hoskyn & Swanson (2000)
Stuebing et al. (2002)
Stuebing et al.
Substantial overlap between IQ-discrepant
& IQ-consistent poor readers
Differences between groups on several
cognitive domains were negligible or small
Research indicates little need for using IQ
tests in assessing LDs
Prognosis
Do LD students and ordinary lowachievers differ in development of reading
ability?
O’Mally et al. (2002) found little evidence
of differences between groups.
Several longitudinal studies found little or
no differences in reading development
between groups.
Response to Intervention
Research generally finds that discrepancy
based LD vs. low-achievers do not
respond differently to interventions.
Vellutino, Scanlon, Lyon (2000) reported
that IQ-achievement discrepancy did not
predict differences between groups on
responses to intervention or which group
would be more easily remediated.
Assessing Validity of LD:
Summary
Research indicates little or no differences
between discrepancy based LD students
and ordinary low achievers based on:
Cognitive
Profiles
Prognosis
Response
to intervention
Validity
Current definitions and diagnosis of LD
students lacks uniqueness (distinct group
of learners) and utility (clear differences in
treatment and prognosis).
Traditional Assessment
Practices Critiqued
No support for
discrepancy based
models of LDprognosis,
uniqueness, RTI, cog
profiles
The reliability and
validity of traditional
classification
practices is poor
(Ysseldyke, Algozzine, &
Thurlow, 2000; Reschly, &
Ysseldyke, 2002)
Traditional Assessment
Practices Critiqued- continued
“Assignment of differential treatment
based on student ability, aptitude, or
categorical condition has not produced
promising results” (pg. 6)
Reschley & Ysseldyke, 2002, Best Practices in School
Psychology
NYS proposed Amendments to
Part 200 May 17, 2005
New definition of LD
More structured eligibility determination
section
Some guidance on assessment/diagnosis
NYS Learning Disability Definition
proposed amendments 5/17/2005
A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, which manifests
itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The
term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps,
brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The
term does not include students who have learning
problems which are primarily the result of visual,
hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of
emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or
economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a
discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected
achievement and actual achievement determined on an
individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning
NYS Learning Disability Definition
proposed amendments 5/17/2005
(C) Eligibility Determinations
(2) A student shall not be determined eligible for special
education if the determinant factor is:
(i)
Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including
explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary development,
reading fluency (including oral reading skills) and
reading comprehension strategies
(*new language proposed)
( Proposed Amendment to the Commissioner, pp. 22 of 67)
NYS Learning Disability Definition
proposed amendments 5/17/2005
(C) Eligibility Determinations
(6) Learning disabilities. In determining whether a
student has a learning disability as defined in
Section 200.1(zz)(6) of this Part the school district:
(i)
May use a process that determines if the student
responds to scientific, researched based
intervention as part of the evaluation procedures
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section; and
( Proposed Amendment to the Commissioner, pp. 22 of 67)
NYS Learning Disability Definition
proposed amendments 5/17/2005
(C) Eligibility Determinations
(ii) is not required to consider whether a student has a
significant discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability in oral expression, listening
comprehension, written expression, basic reading
skill, reading comprehension, mathematical
calculation or mathematical reasoning
( Proposed Amendment to the Commissioner, pp. 23 of 67)
Discussion Time- you make the call!
Potential problems
and barriers to
implementing the new
regulations
Potential benefits
related to the new
regulations
RTI Assessment
Model: NASP
Recommendations
Identification and Eligibility
Determination for Students with
Specific Learning Disabilities
April 25, 2003
NASP Recommendations
Maintain current LD definition but change
eligibility criteria
Eliminate ability-achievement discrepancy
Introduce multi-tier model with dual criteriasignificantly low underachievement, insufficient
response to intervention (RTI)
Criteria 1. Significantly Low
Achievement
States or School Districts may set criteria
for “significantly low achievement”
As in current law exclusionary criteria
would still apply- not primarily the result of
visual, hearing…..
Criteria 2. Insufficient Response
to Intervention
Despite at least 2 empirically based
interventions over a period of at least 6 weeks
Interventions administered in general education
Lack of response not due to low effort, cultural
differences, LEP, or nonattendance
Characteristics of the Multi-Tier
Assessment Model
Tier
1. High quality instructional and
behavioral supports for all students in
general education
Tier 1. Components include..
Research based instruction & behavior
supports
Ongoing CBM of basic skills, instructional
level matched to students skills
Remedial instruction and group
interventions within general education
Characteristics of the Multi-Tier
Model
Tier
2. Targeted intensive prevention
or remediation services for struggling
students
Tier 2. Components include..
Research based/intense services targeted to the
student’s individual needs
Time limited services
Linked to a problem solving process including
general & Sp Ed teachers and support services
personnel
Initiated though formal referral, parental
notification and consent
Tier 2. Problem solving
includes.
Precise charting of progress- general
education interventions
Formal documentation of progress toward
targeted goals
A verified level of intervention fidelity
Comparison to local norms- if available
Characteristics of the Multi-Tier
Model
Tier
3. Comprehensive evaluation by
a multi-disciplinary team to determine
eligibility for special education and
related services
Tier 3. Components include..
Low achievement and insufficient
response criteria met
Referral to a Multidisciplinary Team
MDT conducts a comprehensive
evaluation
Characteristics of Evolving RTI
Assessment Models
Prevention focused
Focused on the “ecology”
not the child
Consultative based
Scientifically supported
Data-based (short term
empiricism)
Elements of an Evolved School
Psychology-continued
Emphasis on
intervention rather
than diagnosis
Focused on the
success of all
students not just
those referred for
Special Education
With Emphasis on Prevention at
Each Level
Universal
Targeted
Reduce new cases of academic failure/problem
behavior
Reduce current cases of academic failure/ problem
behavior
Intensive
Reduce complications, intensity, severity of current
cases
Implications for Intervention
Assessment techniques should lend
themselves to intervention
Assessments that measure important
subskills, are repeatable and directly
related to instruction
The Consultation Process
Problem Identification
Problem Analysis
Plan Implementation
Plan Evaluation
RTI Assessment & Monitoring
Tasks are scientifically
based, relevant to the
curriculum, frequently
administered
Assess baseline and
instructional level
Develop student goals
Assess student progress/
evaluate intervention plan
RTI in Literacy:
Examples of new skills & resources
DIBELS
Peer tutoring
CBM
BEA
Scientifically based
interventions (e.g.,
Big 5 ideas)
Graphing & progress
monitoring
Discussion Time- you make the call!
How consistent are
these practices with
the status quo in your
district?
What will be required
to implement change?
RTI Practices
Defining RTI Criteria
Issues in RTI Measurement
Timing
Standard for assessing response
The nature of the intervention
Source; Lynn Fuchs, 2003
Issues in measurement: Timing
Final Status- measure post intervention
response. Did child meet a pre-determined
performance level.
Growth- measure students periodically across
the intervention. Base decisions on the amount
of learning
Dual Discrepancy- measures both performance
level and growth are measured
Source; Lynn Fuchs, 2003
Issues in measurement:
Standard for Response
Normative- Response is compared to the full
range of student performance (need local
norms).
Limited Norm- Response compared to others
receiving the intervention (need intervention
norms)
Benchmark- Response is compared to a
predetermined goal (40 CRWs, Slope of 1.5
words per week)
Issues in measurement: Nature
of the intervention
General Education- validated instructional
practices with perhaps some limited
adaptation for the student.
Intensive Instruction- Departs from GE,
intense problem solving or standard
tutoring protocols, usually in small groups.
Source; Lynn Fuchs, 2003
NRCLD
National Research Center on
Learning Disabilities
Doug & Lynn Fuchs
LD Identification: Using CBM to
Identify Students Who Are
Not Responsive to Instruction: The Fuchs
Operationalize unresponsiveness as CBM
dual-discrepancy
CBM
performance level is below classmates
CBM slope (rate of learning) is below
classmates
Rationale for Dual Discrepancy
All students do not ultimately achieve
same degree of reading competence
Just because reading growth is low,
student doesn’t automatically receive
special education services
If learning rate is similar to other
classmates, student is profiting from the
regular education environment
LD Identification: Using CBM to
Identify Students Who Are
Not Responsive to Instruction
If a low-performing student does not grow
where other students are thriving, special
intervention needs to be considered
Alternative instructional methods must be
tested to address mismatch between
student’s learning requirements and
requirements in conventional instructional
program
CBM
Teachers
assess students’ academic
performance, using brief measures,
on a frequent basis
The major purposes are
To
describe rate of response to
instruction
To build more effective programs
What We Look For in CBM
INCREASING SCORES:
Student is becoming a better reader.
FLAT SCORES:
Student is not profiting from instruction
and requires a change in the
instructional program.
Sarah’s Progress on Words
Read Correctly
Words Read Correctly
Sarah Smith
Reading 2
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jessica’s Progress on Words Read
Correctly
Words Read Correctly
180
Jessica Jones
Reading 2
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
In RTI, CBM Used For …
Identifying Risk
One-time screening
Monitoring response to GE
Reversing Failure without SE
Individual adaptations to class instruction
Preventive tutoring
Designating response (or lack thereof) to
identify LD
One-Time Screening with CBM
Students are tested at one point in time.
Those scoring below a score are
designated at risk for RD.
At-risk students enter preventative
tutoring.
CBM Screening
to Designate Risk
K:
< 15 sounds/min
1: < 15 words in text/min
2: < 50 words in text/min
3: < 70 words in text/min
4-6: < 15 maze replacements/2.5
min
CBM Monitoring of
Response to GE
Administer weekly CBM to all students in
the class.
Identify subset of children whose level of
performance and rate of improvement is
substantially less than class peers.
CLASS STATISTICS: Computation
Identify
students
whose
response
to general
education
< class
peers.
T eac her: Mrs . Smith
Report through 3/17
Score
Average score
Standard deviation
Discrepancy criterion
39.5
12.6
26.9
Slope
Average sl ope
Standard deviation
Discrepancy criterion
+0.98
0.53
+0.45
Students identified with dual discrepancy criterion
Anthony Jones
Erica Jernig an
Score
19.0
18.0
Slope
+0.05
+0.23
Donald Ross
Using CBM to
test
effectiveness
of adaptations
to class
instruction
Computation 4
70
D
I
G
I
T
S
60
50
G
38
40
30
20
10
0
Sep
O ct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
W ait. Not enough scores for decision.
Y ou need at least 8 sco res to make a decision.
A1
S1
M1
M2
M3
D1
D2
D3
F1
F2
May
Laura Smith
Student
data
trend <
goal line:
Computation 3
50
D
I 40
G 30
I
T 20
S
G
T
14
10
Make a
teaching
change.
0
Sep
O ct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Uh-oh! Make a teaching change.
S tudent's rate of p rogres s is les s than the goal line.
A1
S1
S2
M1
M2
D1
Student
data
trend >
goal
line:
Brian Jones
Computation 3
50
T
D
I 40
G 30
I
T 20
S
G
12
10
0
Raise
the
goal.
Sep
O ct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
OK!!Raise the goal.
S tudent's rate of p rogres s exc eeds th e goal line
A1
S1
S2
M1
M2
D1
May
NRCLD Preventive Tutoring
Content
Letter-sound recognition
Decoding
Sight word recognition
Fluency building
Partner reading
Writing incorporated into correction
procedures
For Information about the
OSEP LD Initiative
http://www.nrcld.org/
www.air.org/ldsummit/
www.ld.org/advocacy/CommonGround.doc
www.erlbaum.com
Identification of Learning Disabilities:
Research to Practice, Renée Bradley,
Louis Danielson, and Daniel Hallahan
(Eds.), 2002
For Information about Progress
Monitoring Materials
Reading probes
[email protected]
Math probes and/or software:
“Monitoring Basic Skills Progress”
Pro-Ed: 512-451-3246
Web math system:
www.digitallearning.com
AIMSweb software, measures, admin & scoring
guides
www.aimsweb.com or http://www.edformation.com
For Information about Progress
Monitoring, Training & Research
National Center for Student Progress
Monitoring
[email protected]
Research Institute on Progress Monitoring
http://progressmonitoring.org
Reading CBM: Fuchs
Kindergarten: Letter-Sound Fluency
Grade 1:
Grades 2-3: Passage Reading
Fluency
Grades 4-6: Maze Fluency
Word-Identification Fluency
RTI Assessment Pre-Literacy to
Literacy
Assessment
DIBELS: Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski, etc
NRCLD & National Center on
Student Progress Monitoring: Doug and
Lynn Fuchs
DIBELS
Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills
Reading First Initiative
Result of The No Child Left Behind Act
Research based program built on
information compiled by the National
Reading Panel
Purpose: To ensure that more children
receive effective reading instruction in the
early grades
http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html
DIBELS Information
One-minute fluency measures are individually
administered to assess the development of prereading and early reading skills.
Benchmarks for K through 3rd Grade. Recently
added 4-6 norms based on Fuchs work.
What does the DIBELS measure?
Specific skills addressed are:
initial
sound fluency
letter naming fluency
phonemic segmentation
nonsense word fluency
oral reading fluency
Big Ideas in Beginning Reading
(http://reading.uoregon.edu)
Phonemic Awareness (DIBELS - Initial Sounds
Fluency; Phoneme Segmentation Fluency)
Alphabetic Principle (DIBELS – Nonsense
Word Fluency)
Fluency with Text (DIBELS – Oral Reading
Fluency)
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Initial Sound Fluency
ISF Example
This is breakfast, hamster, grass,
and lipstick (point to pictures).
1. Which picture begins with /l/?
01
2. Which picture begins with /g/?
01
3. Which picture begins with /h/?
01
4. What sound does “breakfast”
begin with?
01
Measures phonological
awareness
Student is asked to
identify picture that
corresponds to
beginning sound given
orally by examiner
Asked to produce
beginning sound of an
item presented
Phonemic Segmentation
Fluency
PSF Example
duck /d/ /u/ /k/
gone /g/ /o/ /n/
3/6
too /t/ /oo/
seen /s/ /ea/ /n/
____/5
rush /r/ /u/ /sh/
hoot /h/ /oo/ /t/
____/6
shop /sh/ /o/ /p/
bat /b/ /a/ /t/
____/6
Measures ability to
segment three and four
phoneme words
Student is asked to say
all sounds of a given
word
Examiner models correct
response if incorrect on
first example
Letter Naming Fluency
LNF Example
SlunsXkUxi
lDHhTcrDgt
uanrUwCMJi
nqRmtXORBF
sdldwafEFW
XmzcjCQISb
kJBOWhqKso
__/10
__/10
__/10
__/10
__/10
__/10
__/10
Measures letter
naming ability
Student is asked to
name as many letters
as they can in one
minute
Student may ask
examiner if they do
not know a letter
Nonsense Word Fluency
NWF Example
yiz wan zoc ful mik
_/15
zum nuf kun ruv fod
_/15
vep ij op juj sug
_/13
zuz ov vit wam buk
_/14
Measures letter-sound
correspondence and
blending ability
Student is asked to read
make-believe words
Student may segment
word into sounds or read
word as a whole
Oral Reading Fluency
ORF Example
The Sand Castle
My uncle, my dad, and
my brother and I built
a giant sand castle at
the beach. First we
picked a spot far from
the big waves. Then we
got out buckets and
shovels.
5
10
15
19
24
29
33
34
Measures reading
competence - accuracy
and fluency (1st grade
and up)
Student reads aloud for
one minute
Omissions and
substitutions counted as
incorrect
Can use to measure story
recall
Functions of the DIBELS
Classroom Monitoring
Compare student results in primary grade
classrooms to the appropriate benchmarks. Alter
group instruction based on results.
Student Intervention and Monitoring
Tailor instruction for individual students not
meeting benchmarks, the area(s) of concern are
targeted for intervention.
Monitor student progress using probes available
on the website.
DIBELS Classroom Monitoring Example
Three Kindergarten
Classrooms at
Readnwrite
Elementary School
assessed with the
DIBELS at Mid year
and End of the year
% of
student
perform
ance per
category
Overall Kindergarten Mid-Year DIBELS Performance
100%
50%
0%
ISF
LNF
PSF
Subtest
Deficit Emerging Established
NWF
Overall Kindergarten DIBELS Performance:
Mid to Year End
ISF
LNF
PSF
NWF
% of student
performance per
category
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
ISF M
Deficit
Emerging
ISF E LNF M LNF E PSF M PSF E NWF M NWF E
Established
Subtest
DIBELS Student Intervention and
Monitoring Example
First grade student
referred for low
reading skills at
Readnwrite
Elementary School.
Assessed and
monitored with the
DIBELS
Case Example
Instructional Benchmark
Anna’s Performance
Initial Sounds or
Onset Fluency
25+ initials sounds/minute
by winter of Kindergarten
13 initial sounds/minute
Letter Naming
Fluency
37 letters named/minute
in fall of Kindergarten
43 letters/minute
No
Phonemic
Segmentation
Fluency
35+ phonemes/minute
by spring of Kindergarten
30 phonemes/minute
Yes
Nonsense Word
Fluency
50+ letter sounds/minute
in winter of 1st grade
16 letter sounds/minute
Yes
Test
Concern?
Yes
Based on this information, an intervention was developed to target phonemic awareness.
Next Step: Intervention
Began by practicing letter identification
Then moved onto phonemes
Worked
Broke
on elongating sounds
phoneme sounds apart
Asked Anna
within words
to listen for phoneme sounds
Intervention con’t
Worked
on blending sounds
Monitored
progress once per week over several
weeks
Graphed
results with student
Certificate
of achievement at the end of intervention
period
Made
intervention fun!
D ate
1/25/05
1/18/05
1/11/05
1/4/05
12/28/04
12/21/04
12/14/04
12/7/04
11/30/04
11/23/04
11/16/04
11/9/04
11/2/04
10/26/04
10/19/04
10/12/04
10/5/04
9/28/04
9/21/04
Score
Intervention Progress Graph
A nna's C a s e E xa mple
70
60
50
40
30
I SF
LN F
P SF
N WF
20
10
0
Where do I get more information?
The manual, probes, and benchmarks are
available at no charge on the following
website:
http://dibels.uoregon.edu
You must register as a user to be able to
download materials
Interventions
Early Reading Interventions
Early Reading Interventions
http://reading.uoregon.edu
5 Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (3 of
which are assessed by the DIBELS
Measures)
Site provides interventions for teaching
these Big Ideas in Beginning Reading
Teaching the Big Ideas in
Beginning Reading
(http://reading.uoregon.edu/instruction)
Organizing Principles:
Earlier rather than later
Schools, not just programs
Evidence, not opinion
Big Ideas in Beginning Reading
(http://reading.uoregon.edu)
Phonemic Awareness (DIBELS - Initial Sounds
Fluency; Phoneme Segmentation Fluency)
Alphabetic Principle (DIBELS – Nonsense
Word Fluency)
Fluency with Text (DIBELS – Oral Reading
Fluency)
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Strategic Integration of Beginning Reading Skills
(http://reading.uoregon.edu/instruction)
Early Reading Interventions
www.pbskids.org
Between the Lions http://pbskids.org/lions/
Or use search feature on PBS Kids site to
locate intervention ideas that are tied to
the skills assessed by the DIBELS
measures.
Research Findings –
Between the Lions
Mississippi Project (Grace & Prince, 2002)
Significant
differences were made in several key
reading skills of children at high risk of reading failure
in two communities in Mississippi.
The students who participated in the project did not
outperform their non-viewing peers on ALL measures,
but meaningful differences were found and it was
concluded that the series could be an important
component of reading interventions.
Research Findings –
Between the Lions
Summative Evaluation (Linebarger, 2000)
Kindergarten
children who watched the show
outperformed those who did not by nearly 4 to
1 on measures of phonemic awareness,
letter-sound correspondence, and concepts of
print.
Average performance for those who watched
improved by 50% (pre-test to post-test) and
13% for those who did not watch.
Intervention Ideas
Phonemic Awareness
(adapted from www.pbskids.org/lions/)
Use wordplay in songs, poems, and oral
language; and use words that rhyme or begin
with the same sound to foster Phonological
Awareness.
Between
the Lions examples:
Songs and poems help kids hear the sounds in
words:
Limericks spotlight simple rhyming words.
Tongue twisters spotlight initial consonant sounds
(alliteration).
Other poems, songs, and wordplay draw attention to rhyming
and other sound patterns
Intervention Ideas
Fluency
(from www.pbskids.org/lions/)
Use guided, repeated oral reading
Repetition
of predictable, rhythmic, and
rhyming text
Encourage students to read predictable
text in a series of books
Simple,
predictable, repetitive text helps
learners gain momentum
RTI Practices
RTI in literacy with students in
text
Students in Text: Assessment to
Intervention
Assessment
DIBELS:
ORF, Story Retell
CBM
Comprehension Measures
Intervention Ideas/Resources
Peer Tutoring
BEA
Graphing Website
Curriculum Based Measurement
“Curriculum-based measurement, or CBM, is a
method of monitoring student educational
progress through direct assessment of academic
skills. CBM can be used to measure basic skills
in reading, mathematics, spelling, and written
expression. It can also be used to monitor
readiness skills. When using CBM, the instructor
gives the student brief, timed samples, or
"probes," made up of academic material taken
from the child's school curriculum.” (Wright
2005)
CBM Progress Monitoring - Correctly Written Sequences
Baseline
Weekly Monitoring
100
90
80
78
74
Number or Percent
70
60
59
58
55
50
40
30
28
20
20
31
28
26
24
20
18
10
10
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
Trial
CS
Errors
Percent CS
Linear (Percent CS)
6
7
Curriculum Based Measurement
Curriculum based assessment can be used to
measure things such as reading fluency and
comprehension, math fluency, spelling, and
writing fluency
Many practitioners use it as a method to track
student progress while others use it as a class
wide screening method to help guide instruction
and in curriculum development
Why use curriculum based
Measurement?
This method is very quick and simple to administer
This type of assessment can be directly linked to
classroom instruction
It provides information that teachers can use to modify
the instruction for individual students or a whole class
Many people, such as teachers, school psychologists,
and paraprofessionals are able to collect the data
Why use curriculum based
measurement?
Teachers can quickly determine the average academic
performance of a classroom
The information can be used to monitor an individual
student or a whole class based on local norms
It is a quick measure that provides information about
fluency and accuracy when used for reading
The administration of CBM probes is quick to simple to
score, so the probes can easily be given multiple times
weekly
Why use curriculum based
assessment?
CBM is sensitive to short-term student
gains that other measures aren’t able to
pick up
Results of testing with CBM can more
easily reflect a local average rather than
comparing student performance to a
national average
http://www.studentprogress.org/
http://www.interventioncentral.org/index.sh
tml
http://www.nrcld.org/
Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension can be assessed
through the story recall subtest of the
DIBELS
It
provides the child the opportunity to recall
details from a story that they have read in a
one minutes time period.
This looks at the amount of information a
student retained from a reading passage and
is quickly and easily obtained
Reading Comprehension
Reading fluency probes have also been
created with three questions to be used as a
comprehension check at the end of the
probe.
(found on http://www.joewitt.org/
Reading%20Grade%20levels.htm)
Reading Comprehension
Silent reading passages can also be used to
measure comprehension by asking the student
to choose the appropriate term based on a
stories context
(Found on http://www.edformation.com/ promo/mcbm.htm)
Other
passages have been created from popular
children’s literature and can be found on
(Found on http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/
456%20files.htm)
Peer Tutoring
Using CBM to assess reading
levels and monitor progress
Research
According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2004), “as many
as 40% of children in classrooms fail to make
adequate reading progress.”
Up to 25% of the adult population is illiterate
Peer tutoring can help through “oral reading with
feedback and guidance which leads to
meaningful improvements in reading for
students (NRP, 2000).”
Research (cont.)
“Peer tutoring produced more than twice
as much achievement compared to
computer-assisted instruction, three times
more than reducing the class size from 35
to 30 students, and almost four times more
than lengthening the school day by one
hour (Levin, Glass, and Meister, 1984).”
Research (cont.)
Benefits both the tutor and tutee academically
(Garcia-Vazquez & Ehly, 1995).
Also used to foster social skills, positive
relationships, and self-esteem for both (Mercer, et
al., 2001).
Feasible and beneficial for students who are
receiving services for learning disabilities, behavioral
disorders, and developmental delays (Cook,
Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Castro, 1986 )
Cross-Age Peer Tutoring
Variety of different models
A form of cooperative learning under a teacher’s
guidance in which an older student who can often benefit
from additional reinforcement of skills is paired with a
younger student who may or may not need remediation
(Thrope & Wood, 2000).
Supplements classroom instruction
Adapted to the student’s pace, style, and level of
understanding (Jacobson, Thrope, et al., 2001).
Benefits of Cross-Age Peer
Tutoring
Tutors and tutees benefit academically
Analysis of ten cross-age peer tutoring pairs show
consistent academic gains in both students (Thrope &
Wood, 2000).
Tutee receives immediate feedback
Error correction
Answers to questions
Encouragement
Learns correct reading through modeling (Jacobson,
Thrope, et al., 2001)
Tutors are viewed as role models (Thrope & Wood, 2000).
Core Guidelines
Schools have freedom in designing peer tutoring programs as
they like, however a core set of guidelines are encouraged to
increase reading fluency
Select peer tutoring activities that supplement classroom
instruction
Provide thorough training to tutors, ensuring they have
mastered the necessary techniques
Use research based treatments for tutees
Conduct periodic integrity checks
Monitor the effectiveness of the program (CBM)
(Garcia-Vazquez et al., 1995 & Wright, 2004)
Case Example:
New York Urban School District
Implemented under Safe Schools Healthy
Students Initiative
Three urban elementary schools
Facilitated by five SUNY Oswego graduate
students under the guidance of Jim Wright
and Kristi Lorah-Cleary
Participants
Tutors are teacher nominated third and fourth
graders who are reading within one grade level
of their current grade placement
Tutees are teacher nominated second and third
graders who are reading below grade level but
at a minimum of early first grade
Tutor Training
Students took part in four 45 minute
lessons covering the following:
Peer
tutoring and appropriate behaviors
How to give praise to tutees
“Listening While Reading” to build reading
fluency
Review of previous lessons and graduation
“Listening While Reading”
“Modeling by reading aloud helps students understand
what fluency sounds like and is essential to its
development” (Worthy & Broaddus, 2001).
Benefits include gains in rate, accuracy, phrasing,
segmentation, and expression (Chomsky, 1978;
Schreiber, 1987).
“Listening While Reading”
Book is placed so both the tutor and tutee can read from
it
Tutor reads one page of text aloud to the tutee
Tutee reads the same page aloud to the tutor while the
tutor provides error correction as needed
At the end of each page, students are instructed to
verbally praise the tutee’s effort
Sessions
Total of 30 sessions will occur over the
course of the program
Sites
vary slightly
30 minute sessions, three times per week
Progress Monitoring
Used to look at the effectiveness of the peer
tutoring intervention
Each week the students are monitored using
Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) reading
probes
Probes are used to determine whether the
number of correctly read words (CRW) per
minute that a student reads increases over time
indicating whether the intervention was effective
or not
Tutee Progress Monitoring
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10/11
10/26
11/10
11/25
12/10
12/25
1/9
1/24
2/8
2/23
3/9
3/24
4/8
4/23
5/8
5/23
6/7
Correctly Read Words
Per Minute
Keith
Grade 2
Monitoring Level 1:1
Assesment Date
Baseline/CRW
Monitoring/CRW
Tutee Progress Monitoring
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10/11
10/26
11/10
11/25
12/10
12/25
1/9
1/24
2/8
2/23
3/9
3/24
4/8
4/23
5/8
5/23
6/7
Correctly Read Words
Per Minute
Alyson
Grade 2
Monitoring Level 1:1
Assesment Date
Baseline/CRW
Monitoring/CRW
Tutor Progress Monitoring
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/26
10/11
10/26
11/10
11/25
12/10
12/25
1/9
1/24
2/8
2/23
3/9
3/24
4/8
4/23
5/8
5/23
6/7
Correctly Read Words
Per Minute
Leslie
Grade 3
Monitoring Level 2:2
Assesment Date
Baseline/CRW
Monitoring/CRW
Tutor Progress Monitoring
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9/26
10/11
10/26
11/10
11/25
12/10
12/25
1/9
1/24
2/8
2/23
3/9
3/24
4/8
4/23
5/8
5/23
Correctly Read Words
Per Minute
Shannon
Grade 4
Monitoring Level 2:2
Assesment Date
Baseline/CRW
Monitoring/CRW
www.interventioncentral.org
For a complete description of the Peer
Tutoring Project and materials necessary for
implementation please visit the website
created by Jim Wright- “Intervention Central”
Brief Experimental
Analysis
CBM are useful methods to use in
combination with BEA to identify the
least intrusive and most effective
intervention to use with a student.
What’s BEA?
A model used to predict which intervention
will be most effective & feasible for a student
We "test-drive" different interventions before
“buying one” to see which “runs best & gets
best mileage”
BEA can be used with variety of
academic or behavior problems
Focus Today: Academics
(particularly oral reading)
4 Main Steps…
Step 1. Collect Baseline
-Current performance level before new
intervention
-Something to measure later performance
against
-Can use: CBM, Classroom quizzes,
worksheets, reading series , other
Step 2. Choose interventions to
“test-drive”
Selected based on Main Reasons for Academic
Difficulty
*Which is Based on Instructional Hierarchy
(Effective Instruction Accuracy Fluency
Generalization)
Possible Reading Interventions
1) Motivation: choices and incentives
2) Motivation & Practice- 1 & passage preview
3) Motivation, Practice, & Modeling- 2 & LPP
4) Motivation, Practice, Modeling, & Help- 3 & error
correction
5) Better Instructional match: easier materials
(Listed from easiest to most difficult and intrusive)
Step 3. Briefly “Test-Drive”
interventions sequentially from
least to most intrusive
measure
student performance
after each “Test Drive”
Administer & Monitor each
Intervention…
3 Times
Accounts for variability/checks for
consistency
Like a “mini-replica” of the experiment
This increases our confidence in uncovering
the best intervention.
4. Compare “test – drives”…
Graph outcome of each intervention
Ex. If using CBM: Graph CRW’s & errors
for each intervention and compare.
Which intervention “ran the best”?
Which produced greatest increases in
performance?
If 2 were equally effective, which was
least intrusive?
Balance effectiveness with feasibility
BEA Goal is Reached
Appropriate intervention for student
is identified…
Long-Term Implementation
(Extended Analysis Phase)
Turn the identified intervention into a
long-term intervention
Measure progress over time
Use same method as used for baseline
Use novel passages, quizzes, ect. that
student hasn’t been given before
This allows us to assess if progress is
generalizing to novel text
See if student is progressing as
desired…
Alter intervention as needed.
Strengths of BEA
Interventions are tailored to individual
student need
Saves time in long run by predicting
effective/feasible interventions early on
Adaptable to use with variety of academic
or behavior problems
Quick and easy
BEA Case Example:
Haley
Reason for Referral
10-year old female
Fourth grade
Referred for reading difficulties
Baseline performance
CBM used
Instructional for reading at a late third grade
level (3-2)
Reading 48 words correctly per minute with 5
errors
Brief Experimental Analysis
Interventions developed according to
Main reasons for academic difficulty…
This BEA identically repeated three
times
= three BEA trials or “mini-replicas”:
(week 1, 2, & 3)
Allowed consultant to check for
consistency/ account for variability
CRWs Per Minute
Outcome: CRWs Per Minute
grouped by Intervention
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Baseline
Intervention 1
Intervention 2
Intervention Phase
Intervention 3
Intervention 4
Median Errors per Minute
Errors Per Min
5
4
3
2
1
0
Baseline
Intervention 1
Intervention 2
Intervention Phase
Intervention 3
Intervention 4
Results Summary
Intervention 3
(motivation, practice and modeling)
was most consistently effective..
So it was implemented long-term
Extended Analysis Phase:
1.
Level 3-2 book used.
2.
LPP/RR/Motivation implemented.
3.
30 min.,2x/week, 5 weeks.
Monitoring Process
Progress measured after each
session…
Median performance taken on three
novel 3-2 level CBM passages
Haley graphed own daily performance
on chart to see progress
Results: CRWs per Minute:
Extended Phase
CRWs Per Min
100
80
60
40
Baseline
3/22
3/25
3/29
4/1
Date
4/8
4/19
4/22
48 to 97 CRWs per minute
(Baseline to end of intervention)
#Errors ranged from 3 to 7 per minute during
Extended Phase
Summary
Successful reading improvement over time
through use of intervention specially
designed for Haley’s individual needs.
Intervention identified using BEA model
Graphing and Templates
How to use graphs to
display assessment and
progress monitoring data.
Templates
• Have been already constructed for
your use in order to input data using
DIBELS, CBA, BEA and Peer Tutoring.
• All you have to do is input the data
and then click on the graph tab.
• You do not need to know how to
construct your own graph – however
if this is something you want to
learn directions are included.
Templates
• Have been already constructed for
your use in order to input data using
DIBELS, CBA, BEA and Peer Tutoring.
• All you have to do is input the data
and then click on the graph tab.
• You do not need to know how to
construct your own graph – however
if this is something you want to
learn directions are included.
Examples of the templates and
corresponding Graphs……
DIBELS Individual Student
Graph
DIBELS Grade Level
Assessment Template
DIBELS Grade Level
Assessment Graph
CBM Template
CBM Graph
Adding a slope to CBM
graph
• With Excel, No problem
60
Susie's Reading Progress
50
Correctly Read Words
40
30
CRW
Errors
20
10
0
1/1/1900
1/2/1900
1/3/1900
1/4/1900
1/5/1900
1/6/1900
Date
1/7/1900
1/8/1900
1/9/1900
1/10/1900
1/11/1900
Susie's Reading Progress
60
50
Correctly Read Words
40
CRW
30
Errors
20
10
0
1/1/1900
1/2/1900
1/3/1900
1/4/1900
1/5/1900
1/6/1900
Date
1/7/1900
1/8/1900
1/9/1900
1/10/1900
1/11/1900
Debbie's Reading Progress
30
25
Correctly Read Words
20
CRW
15
Errors
10
5
0
1/1/1900
1/2/1900
1/3/1900
1/4/1900
1/5/1900
1/6/1900
Date
1/7/1900
1/8/1900
1/9/1900
1/10/1900
1/11/1900
Debbie's Reading Progress
30
25
Correctly Read Words
20
CRW
15
Errors
10
5
0
1/1/1900
1/2/1900
1/3/1900
1/4/1900
1/5/1900
1/6/1900
Date
1/7/1900
1/8/1900
1/9/1900
1/10/1900
1/11/1900
How to access these
templates
www.oswego.edu/~mcdougal/
Discussion Time- you make the call!
What are the most
prominent needs that
must be met in order
for you to respond to
the RTI initiative?
(training,
administrative/district
support, resources)
RESOURCES
http://www.joewitt.org/Reading%20Grade%20levels.htm
This website has curriculum based assessment probes for
students in first through fifth grade with comprehension
questions at the end of each probe. It also offers instructions for
interventions with students as well as progress monitoring.
http://www.edformation.com/promo/mcbm.htm
Pre-made ORF passages may be purchased from the Aimsweb
site linked below. These passages are based on grade-level
fiction stories written for the purpose of assessing students'
reading skills.
You can purchase close passages for Curriculum based
assessment monitoring for grades 1 through 8.
RESOURCES
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/456%
20files.htm
The
passages found here are taken from well
known children's literature. There are about
20 passages at each grade level for grades 4,
5, and 6.
The following resources can be found on
www.interventioncentral.org
a website created by Jim Wright.
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/cbaManual.pdf
This website provides a comprehensive manual
created for teachers. It provides administration
guidelines as well as examples of monitoring probes.
http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/ok
api.shtml
OKAPI creates CBA reading probes from text. A short
piece of text can be entered and the OKAPI program
will analyze the difficulty level of the text as well as
create a CBA probe to be used in progress
monitoring. This is an extremely quick and simple toll
to use.
The following resources can be found on
www.interventioncentral.org
a website created by Jim Wright.
http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interv
entions/cbmwarehouse.shtml
CBA Warehouse “A world of CBM resources
under one roof…”
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/chartdog_2_
0/chartdog.php
This allows graphing of information collected
through curriculum based assessment quickly
and easily.
REFERENCES
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/cb
aManual.pdf
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/WebPages/CBM_ReadingPP/CBMReading.html
References
Chafouleas, S.M., Riley-Tillman, T.C., & McGrath, M.C. (2002). Making
successful intervention decisions through testing intervention
packages: A manual for conducting brief experimental analysis (BEA).
Chomsky, C. (1978). When you still can’t read in third grade: After
decoding, what? In S.J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about
reading instruction (pp. 13-30). Newark,
DE: International
Reading Association.
Cook, S.B., Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Castro, G.C. (1986).
Handicapped students as
tutors. The Journal of Special
Education, 19(4), 483-492.
Daly, E.J.,III, Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for
conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems.
School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.
Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (2004). Peer-assisted learning strategies:
Accelerating growth in reading and mathematics. Communiqué
(insert). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
References Cont…
Garcia-Vazquez, E. & Ehly, S. (1995). Best practices for facilitating
peer tutoring programs. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
Practices in School Psychology- III (pp. 403-411). Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Gravois, T.A., & Gickling, E.E. 2002)Best Practices in Curriculum
Based Assessment. Best Practices in School Psychology IV,56,885898.
Haring, N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Eaton, M.D., & Hansen, C.L. (1978). The
fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Howell, K.W., Kurns, S., & Antil, L. 2002)Best Practices in Using
Curriculum Based Evaluation. Best Practices in School Psychology
IV,48,753-771.
References Cont…
Jacobson, J., Thrope, L., & Fisher, D. Cross-age tutoring:
A literacy improvement approach for struggling
adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 44(6), 528-536. Retrieved on March 27, 2004
HW Wilson.
Levin, H., Glass, G., & Meister, C. (1984). Cost
effectiveness of four educational Interventions. Stanford,
CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and
Governance, Stanford University.
Mercer, C.D. & Mercer, A.R. (2001). Teaching students
with learning problems (6th Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
References Cont…
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An
evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports
of the Subgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development.
Schreiber, P.A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s
syntactic processing. In R.Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.),
Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 243-270. New
York: Academic Press.
Shinn Mark. R.(2002)Best Practices in Using Curriculum Based
Measurement in a Problem Solving Model. Best Practices in
School Psychology IV,44,371-397.
Thrope, L., & Wood, K. (2000). Cross-age tutoring for young
adolescents. The Clearing House, 73(4), 239-243. Retrieved
March 27, 2004 from ProQuest.
References Cont…
Worthy, J. & Broaddus, K. (2001). Fluency
beyond the primary grades: From group
performance to silent, independent reading.
Reading Teacher, 55(4), pp. 334-344. Retrieved
March 11, 2005 from EbscoHost.
Wright, J. (2004). Curriculum based
measurement: A manual for teachers. Retrieved
on February 14, 2005 from
www.interventioncentral.org