This question bank includes questions that teams can use to develop a hypothesis about why an individual or group of students may not be responding to an intervention. The hypothesis should help guide intervention planning and selection of intensification strategies using the Intervention Intensification Strategy Checklist. When developing a hypothesis, teams should consider the intervention design, fidelity of implementation, and learner needs. Intervention fidelity data collected using the Student Intervention Implementation Log and informal diagnostic data may help teams answer the questions included in the question bank.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview of behavioral progress monitoring and goal setting to inform data-driven decision making within tiered support models and individualized education programs (IEPs).
Support from leaders is essential for effective DBI implementation. This resource illustrates how DBI can help principals and local level administrators leverage existing resources, integrate supports for academics and behavior, define Tier 3, align special education and MTSS, establish effective data meetings, and improve outcomes for students who are at-risk for poor learning outcomes. In addition, the resource shares strategies and resources available to support implementation
Teams are a vital part of an effective multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) across both academics and behavior as well as special education. Making connections across the across the various teams used in MTSS and special education can be challenging. This resource from NCII and the PBIS Center, provides information about how DBI can support IEP implementation and provides a table with key considerations for teams working across the MTSS system.
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. The DBI process includes five iterative steps:
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.
The purpose of this module is to introduce schools interested in implementing intensive intervention to the infrastructure needed to implement data-based individualization (DBI). The module includes presentation slides with integrated activities and handouts to help teams determine their readiness and develop an action plan for implementation.
This updated training module provides a rationale for intensive intervention and an overview of data-based individualization (DBI), NCII’s approach to providing intensive intervention. DBI is a research-based process for individualizing validated interventions through the systematic use of assessment data to determine when and how to intensify intervention. Two case studies, one academic and one behavioral, are used to illustrate the process and highlight considerations for implementation.
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 white paper summarizes the proceedings of a summit that was focused on integrating research knowledge on promising approaches into intensive intervention and implementation to improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities who have severe and persistent learning need. In addition, it includes responses from three participants representing perspectives from policy (David Chard, Wheelock College), research (Nathan Clemens, University of Texas at Austin), and practice (Steve Goodman, Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative).