This resource developed by Sarah Thorud, Elementary Reading Specialist from Clatskanie School District in Oregon focuses on implementing screening and progress monitoring virtually. It includes guiding questions and considerations for implementation, video examples, and a sample sign-up sheet for screening and progress monitoring students virtually.
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.
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.
These five screening one-page documents provide a brief overview of each of the NCII screening standards. They include a definition and information on why that particular standard is important for understanding the quality of screening tools.
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
The Behavior Screening Tools Chart is comprised of evidence-based screening tools that can be used to identify students in need of behavioral intervention. The chart displays ratings on technical rigor in the areas of classification accuracy, reliability, and validity, and provides information on the representativeness of the sample, whether a bias analysis was conducted, and key usability features. The chart is intended to assist educators and families in becoming informed consumers who can select behavior screening tools that address their specific needs. The presence of a particular tool on the chart does not constitute endorsement and should not be viewed as a recommendation from either the TRC on Behavior Screening or NCII.
The Academic Screening Tools Chart is comprised of evidence-based screening tools that can be used to identify students at risk for poor academic outcomes, including students who require intensive intervention. The chart displays ratings on technical rigor in the areas of classification accuracy, reliability, and validity, and provides information on the representativeness of the sample, whether a bias analysis was conducted, and key usability features. The chart is intended to assist educators and families in becoming informed consumers who can select academic screening tools that address their specific needs. The presence of a particular program on the chart does not constitute endorsement and should not be viewed as a recommendation from either the TRC on Academic Screening or NCII.
In this article, Dr. Carrie Thomas Beck from the Oregon Department of Education discusses the dyslexia law in Oregon, the role of intensive intervention in Oregon’s dyslexia initiative, and provides advice for states defining their dyslexia frameworks.