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.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
The Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart is comprised of evidence-based progress monitoring tools that can be used to assess students’ academic performance, to quantify a student rate of improvement or responsiveness to instruction, and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. The chart displays ratings on technical rigor of performance level standards (reliability and validity) and growth standards (sensitivity, alternate forms, and decision rules) and provides information on the 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 progress monitoring 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 Academic Progress Monitoring 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.
Data-based individualization (DBI) is a research-based process for individualizing and intensifying interventions through the systematic use of assessment data, validated interventions, and research-based adaptation strategies. This document introduces and describes the DBI process and how it can be used to support students who require intensive intervention in academics and/or behavior.
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the Center’s accomplishments and to highlight a set of lessons learned from the 26 schools that implemented intensive intervention while receiving technical support from the Center.
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
This brief provides a framework for using Response to Intervention (RTI) with students who are English Language Learners (ELL) from Hispanic backgrounds. It examines the characteristics of these students; defines the RTI process; and then models how students’ linguistic, cultural, and experiential backgrounds can guide appropriate screening, progress monitoring, and goal setting that will help promote English literacy. The brief concludes with a case study that provides specific recommendations for how to apply screening and progress monitoring with ELLs.
Norms for oral reading fluency (ORF) can be used to help educators make decisions about which students might need intervention in reading and to help monitor students’ progress once instruction has begun. This paper describes the origins of the widely used curriculum-based measure of ORF and how the creation and use of ORF norms has evolved over time. Using data from three widely-used commercially available ORF assessments (DIBELS, DIBELS Next, and easyCBM), a new set of compiled ORF norms for grade 1-6 are presented here along with an analysis of how they differ from the norms created in 2006.