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.
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 series of infographics, developed in collaboration with the Rhode Island Parent Information Network, are intended to provide a high-level overview of intensive intervention, questions parents and families might want to ask school teams to learn more, and tips for parents in supporting their child who is receiving intensive intervention. These resources should not replace ongoing communication between schools, and parents and families.
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.
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.
This checklist can be used by intervention providers or planning teams to review, document, and improve implementation of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and monitor whether the student intervention plans were implemented as intended.
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.
This webinar, presented by Laura Magnuson, a technical assistance provider for NCII, provides an overview of the rationale and purpose for secondary or Tier 2 interventions.
This webinar, presented by Kate Augustyn, Debra Jennings, and Kelly Orginski, discusses the importance of family engagement and provides examples of ways to engage families to support students.
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.