This resource is a companion to NCII’s Clarifying Questions to Create a Hypothesis to Guide Intervention Changes: Question Bank and provides additional questions for teams to consider for students who are English learners (ELs). Teams may use these questions when considering a student’s progress monitoring data, intervention fidelity data, and informal diagnostic data.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Event Type
Search
This handout describes three validated goal-setting strategies educators can use to set intervention goals using general outcome measures.
This handout briefly defines the seven dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity for academics and behavior. The Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity was developed based on research to support educators in evaluating and building intervention intensity. The seven dimensions include strength, dosage, alignment, attention to transfer, comprehensiveness, behavior or academic support, and individualization.
This checklist can be used by teams to help identify ideas to intensify interventions based on their hypothesis for why the student may not be responding to an intervention. The checklist is aligned with the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity.
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.
Within a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), intensive intervention, also known as Tier 3, is designed to support students with the most severe and persistent learning and/or behavior difficulties. This document highlights some common misconceptions about intensive academic and behavior interventions that experts from the Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and NCII have observed in supporting the implementation of intensive intervention within the context of MTSS.
This two page handout highlights how to use the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity when selecting, evaluating, and intensifying interventions for students who are English learners (ELs). Specific considerations for ELs are provided across the dimensions of strength, dosage, alignment. attention to transfer, comprehensiveness, behavioral support, and individualization.
This rubric uses descriptors of the dimensions of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity to support teams in selecting and evaluating validated interventions for small groups or individual students. Teams may consider using data available on the National Center on Intensive Intervention Academic Tools Chart and the publishers’ websites as well as results from previous implementation efforts. Each dimension will be rated on a scale of 0– Fails to Address Standard to 3 – Addresses Standard Well. Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity: Academic Rating Rubric Related Resources Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity Resources
This resource developed by Sarah Thorud, Elementary Reading Specialist from Clatskanie School District in Oregon focuses on implementing screening and progress monitoring virtually. It includes guiding questions and considerations for implementation, video examples, and a sample sign-up sheet for screening and progress monitoring students virtually.
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.