This is part 3 of the larger module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part is intended to provide participants with an introduction to error analysis of curriculum-based measures for the purpose of identifying skill deficits and providing examples of error analysis in reading and mathematics. Part 4, “Identifying Target Skills,” will further link these skill deficits to intervention.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
This is part 2 of the module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part includes examples of graphed data and is intended to provide participants with guidance for reviewing progress monitoring data to determine if the instructional plan is working or if a change is needed.
This is part 1 of the larger module, “Informal Academic Diagnostic Assessment: Using Data to Guide Intensive Instruction.” This part is intended to provide an overview of common general outcome measures (GOM) used for progress monitoring in reading and mathematics, with guidance on selecting an appropriate measure.
This training module, includes four sections that (a) provide an overview of administering common general outcome measures for progress monitoring in reading and mathematics, (b) review graphed progress monitoring data, and (c) provide guidance on identifying what type of skills the intervention should target to be most effective in reading and mathematics.
Monitoring Student Progress for Behavioral Interventions (DBI Professional Learning Series Module 3)
This module focuses on behavioral progress monitoring within the context of the DBI process and addresses: (a) methods available for behavioral progress monitoring, including but not limited to Direct Behavior Rating (DBR), and (b) using progress monitoring data to make decisions about behavioral interventions.
In this video, Dr. Devin Kearns, an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Education Psychology at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut and NCII Trainer & Coach, discusses importance of consistency when selecting, administering, and scoring progress monitoring tools.
In this video, Dr. Joe Wehby, Senior Advisor to the National Center for Intensive Intervention and Associate Professor in the Vanderbilt University Department of Special Education, discusses the number of data points needed to make decisions for students with intensive behavior needs.
In this video, Dr. Lynn Fuchs, Nicholas Hobbs Professor of Special Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University and Senior Advisor to the National Center on Intensive Intervention, shares considerations for adapting interventions when the validated intervention program wasn’t successful.
How do you know if an intervention, program, or practice is likely to be effective with a particular subgroup of students? What resources are there to help school, district, and State leaders identify and select evidence-based practices (EBPs)? EBPs play an increasingly prominent role in Federal education policy. In both State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs) and provisions in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), States are being asked to implement practices and programs that have evidence of effectiveness.
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.