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.
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
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.
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.
Progress monitoring is an essential part of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) and, specifically, the data-based individualization (DBI) process. It allows educators and administrators to understand whether students are responding to intervention and if adaptations are needed. In addition, these data are often used to set high-quality academic and behavioral goals within the individualized education program (IEP) for students with disabilities. With the closure of schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic, educators and administrators need to rethink how they collect and analyze progress monitoring data in a virtual setting. This collection of frequently asked questions is intended to provide a starting place for consideration.
This template is intended to assist with the planning and documentation of dimensions of an intervention for small groups or an individual student within the data-based individualization (DBI) process.
This tool is designed to help educators collect and graph academic progress monitoring data across multiple measures as a part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process. This tool allows educators to store data for multiple students (across multiple measures), graph student progress, and set individualized goals for a student on specific measures.
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.
In this video, Dr. Devin Kearns, an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Education Psychology at the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut and NCII Trainer & Coach, discusses importance of consistency when selecting, administering, and scoring progress monitoring tools.
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.