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.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
If we don’t implement critical components of an intervention with consistency, we cannot link student outcomes to the instruction provided. Fidelity can help us to determine the effectiveness of an intervention, and identify if a student requires more intensive supports. This resource outlines five elements of fidelity and provides guiding questions for each.
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.
NCII presented a special session at the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) 2016 Annual Convention. Presenters included Drs. Laura Berry Kuchle, Christopher Lemons, Chris Riley-Tillman, and Lou Danielson. The session (1) shared the importance of intensive intervention, (2) described data-based individualization (DBI), a process for adapting academic and behavioral interventions to meet individual needs, (3) described tools to evaluate implementation of key components of DBI, (4) discussed implementation patterns in NCII’s partner schools and lessons learned from NCII's technical assistance with schools and districts, and (5) shared resources available from NCII.
Intensive intervention teams can use these checklists to monitor implementation of the data-based individualization (DBI) process during initial planning and ongoing review (progress monitoring) meetings in order to ensure teams develop high quality student plans. These detailed checklists may be most beneficial for less experienced teams. As teams become more familiar with DBI implementation, they may choose to use the checklists less frequently or focus on only a subset of items.
NCII presented a strand at Center for Exceptional Children (CEC) 2015 Convention and Expo. The strand, "How Can We Make Intensive Intervention Happen? Considerations for Knowledge Development, Implementation, and Policy," address the range of issues schools and districts encounter as they attempt to implement intensive intervention—knowledge and skills, systems to support and evaluate implementation, and policy context.
The DBI Implementation Rubric and the DBI Implementation Interview are intended to support monitoring of school-level implementation of data-based individualization (DBI). The rubric is based on the structure of the Center on Response to Intervention’s Integrity Rubric and is aligned with the essential components of DBI and the infrastructure that is necessary for successful implementation in Grades K–6. It describes levels of implementation on a 1–5 scale across DBI components. The rubric is accompanied by the DBI Implementation Interview which includes guiding questions that may be used for a self-assessment or structured interview of a school’s DBI leadership team.
NCII presented a Strand at CEC 2014 Convention and Expo focused on intensive intervention. The Strand Using Intensive Intervention to Meet the Academic and Behavior Needs of Struggling Learners provided participants with an overview of how principles of intensive intervention may be applied to students with severe and persistent learning needs across reading, mathematics, and behavior. The Strand included three content-oriented sessions focused on reading, mathematics, and behavior and one panel session covering common implementation issues associated with provision of intensive services
This presentation from the CASE-NASDSE Conference (2016, September) featured directors at the Rhode Island Department of Education, a local district, and personnel from national technical assistance centers (NCII, NCSI, CEEDAR). Lessons learned from a state-local partnership focused on implementing intensive intervention were shared from school, district, state, and national perspectives. Implementation efforts were discussed in the context of the Office of Special Education Programs’ Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) framework. Considerations for other states and districts engaging in implementation efforts under RDA were also highlighted.
There are a variety of terms used interchangeably to define special education: specially-designed instruction, Tier 3 supports, and intensive intervention, but, do they mean the same thing? In this presentation, delivered at the 2017 OSEP Leadership Conference, state leaders of special education, David Sienko from the Rhode Island Department of Education and Glenna Gallo, from the Washington State Board of Education – alongside personnel from the National Center on Intensive Intervention – shared perspectives on how special education is defined to espouse commonalities across terminology and services to support students with disabilities. Presentation