This handout briefly defines the seven dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity for academics and behavior. The Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity was developed based on research to support educators in evaluating and building intervention intensity. The seven dimensions include strength, dosage, alignment, attention to transfer, comprehensiveness, behavior or academic support, and individualization.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
This rubric uses descriptors of the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity to support teams in selecting and evaluating validated interventions for small groups or individual students.
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.
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.
This two page handout defines the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity through guiding questions and highlights when the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity can be used within the data-based individualization (DBI) process. Teams can use the dimensions to evaluate a current intervention, select a new intervention and intensify interventions when students do not respond.
In this Voices From the Field piece, the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) speaks to Cyndi Caniglia, PhD, an assistant professor in the Department of Education at Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington about how she has meaningfully integrated the NCII Features of Explicit Instruction Course Content into her coursework.
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.
In this article, Dr. Jennifer Ledford shares information about single-case design research and how it relates to intensive intervention as well as resources from the Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research (CEC DR).
This log can be used as a daily and weekly record of the implementation of an individual student’s intensive intervention plan. This information, along with progress monitoring graphs, can inform team intervention and data review meetings. You may choose to supplement the logs with additional items or more detailed intervention notes.
Providing more explicit instruction, captured within the comprehensiveness domain of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity, is critical within intensive intervention. The Recognizing Effective Special Education Teachers (RESET) project, funded by U.S. Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences (IES) and led by Evelyn Johnson at Boise State University, developed a series of rubrics based on evidence-based practices for students with high incidence disabilities. One set of rubrics focuses on explicit instruction. Based on the main ideas of Explicit Instruction, the Explicit Instruction Rubric was designed for use by supervisors and administrators to reliably evaluate explicit instructional practice, to provide specific, accurate, and actionable feedback to special education teachers about the quality of their explicit instruction, and ultimately, improve the outcomes for students with disabilities.