In this Voices from the Field piece, we talk to Dr. Chrissy Brown, a recent National Center for Leadership in Intensive Intervention (NCLII) scholar. Dr. Brown discusses the NCLII program and how it has guided her in preparing educators to implement intensive interventions.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
Successful implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) and, specifically, intensive intervention through the data-based individualization (DBI) process, demands the collection and analysis of data. As teams consider data collection, challenges may occur with assessment administration, scoring, and data entry (Taylor, 2009). This resource reviews three data collection and entry challenges and strategies to ensure data about risk status and responsiveness accurately represent student performance and minimize measurement errors.
The purpose of this document is to provide content-specific examples of how to structure educator-level and/or systems-level coaching as a mechanism to ensure ongoing professional learning to support tiered intervention. This document provides examples of coaching supports, models, and functions within the context of tiered intervention (e.g., RtI, PBIS, MTSS) and data-based decision making (e.g., data-based individualization [DBI]) for educators who already have foundational knowledge and/or experience with coaching.
This is the first module in a series of modules about intensive intervention in reading. There are two parts in this module that answer the questions (1) why is intensive intervention in reading important? and (2) how does data-based individualization (DBI) apply to reading?
The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview of behavioral progress monitoring and goal setting to inform data-driven decision making within tiered support models and individualized education programs (IEPs).
This module provides an overview of diagnostic assessments, using error analysis with CBMs, developing and using curriculum-based assessments (CBAs), and integrating diagnostic and progress monitoring data to inform instructional adaptations.
This collection highlights a sampling of articles focused on intensive intervention and data-based individualization (DBI). Although there is a wealth of research on key components of the DBI process (e.g., progress monitoring, validated intervention programs), this list is not intended to include articles that focus on specific steps in the DBI process, nor is it an exhaustive review of all available literature. In the list below, we highlight seminal research on DBI and articles published since 2011, when NCII was first funded.
This module identifies Tier II and Tier III interventions for students at risk and high risk for behavioral challenges. By the end of this module you should be able to: Describe the decision-making process to indicate Tier II is appropriate Identify critical features of Tier II Discuss how to modify Tier II interventions to meet the needs of more students Highlight critical elements of a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) Choose a desired and replacement behavior Complete a Competing Pathway Model Begin to identify strategies to make the problem behavior irrelevant, inefficient, and ineffective
This Voices from the Field piece highlights how North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and Texas have raised awareness, visibility, and statewide knowledge of data-based individualization (DBI) at statewide conferences through keynote speakers, workshops, breakout sessions, and facilitated team time.
This fourteen minute video shares Wyoming’s journey in building the capacity of educators to implement data-based individualization (DBI) to improve academic and behavior outcomes for students with disabilities as part of their state systemic improvement plan (SSIP). Wyoming administrators, teachers, parents and students from Laramie County School District # 1 and preschool sites share how DBI implementation impacted teacher efficacy, team meetings, quality of services, student confidence, and state and local collaboration.