rti in 2005 understanding/diagnosing reading disabilities within a rti model marilyn korth,...

RTI in 2005

Understanding/Diagnosing ReadingDisabilities within a RTI Model

Marilyn Korth, Altmar-Parish-Williamstown School District Tricia Hamlin, Southern Cayuga Central School District

Amanda Miller, Saint Catherine’s Center for Children Karrie Clark, Carthage School District

& James McDougal, PsyD

State University of New York at [email protected]

LD Within an RTI Model

AGENDA

Brief history of Special Education: how it has influenced our practice

Critiques of traditional assessment practices

Contemporary Approaches- Early Literacy to Literacy

1975, PL 94-142

Provided educational rights and goals for children previously underserved or excluded

Solidified the dominant place of Special Education in School Psychology

Discrepancy based model influenced assessment practices

Characteristics of the “Traditional Assessment Practices”

Medical model, deficit oriented, child centered

One at a time focus “Wait to fail” “Refer-test- place” Heavy on diagnosis light

on cure “Correlation approach”

Surveys of our SPs role

50-55% of time in traditional assessment

20% direct intervention 17% in consultation

(problem solving) 6% systems level

consultation 2% PE and R

Fagan & Wise, 2000, Reschly, 2000,

Related to Traditional Assessment? Inconsistencies in

Identification

1988 27 % of identified children in Utah were ED,

the ED rate in CA was

2.5 % of identified childrenForness & Kavale, 1990

Huge Increases in Identification

From 1976 to 2002 the classification of children with specific learning disabilities increased 300%President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education July 1, 2002

Related to the Traditional Model? Reading Failure

80% of of those with SLD (40% of all Sp Ed students) are there because they haven’t learned how to read

Cultural Bias African American

students are twice as likely as whites to be labeled MR and 50% more likely to be designated as emotionally disturbed(A New Era 2002)

Related to the Traditional Model? 6 million children

currently in special education

Federal funding is 8.5 billion dollars

Placement in special education programs most often result in little gain or negative outcomes

(A New Era 2002)

The Link to LD Assessment:Past and Future

Discrepancy based procedures

Problems with these models

A new approach

LD Assessment: Past & FutureThe Ghost of LD

PAST Definitional

Concerns What is LD? What isn’t LD? Discrepancy based

models Wait to fail

The Promise of LD Future A New Era Preventative approach Validated Models Response to

Intervention

NY Learning Disability Definition 1997

A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifests itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected achievement and actual achievement determined on an individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning disability

IDEA's Definition of Learning Disability

". . . a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia."However, learning disabilities do not include, "…learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."

Example of State Requirements for LD Diagnosis

Achievement Intelligence Discrepancy

Severe Discrepancy Determination by Formula

Kate obtains an IQ score of 90 and an achievement score of 74. Is this 16-point difference large enough to be considered a ‘significant difference’ between ability and achievement?

Data:

Ability Score ………………………………………………... 90

Reliability of Ability Score ……………………………. … 0.91

Achievement Score ……………………………………….. 74

Achievement Reliability ………………………………….. 0.91

Correlation Between Ability and Achievement Scores .. 0.47

Methods for Determining Severe Discrepancy

Deviation from Grade Level Standard Deviation from the Mean Standard Score Comparison Regression Formula

In our example of Kate she would be LD with the first 3 methods but not with the 4th.

Reliability concerns

Determination of LD Diagnosis is based in part on:State determinations of severe discrepancymethod of calculating severe discrepancy

Different methods of calculating a discrepancy will result in different students being classified

Validity

Learning disability is result of unexpected low achievement.

Also implies that children with unexpected low achievement (LD) are distinct from expected low achievement (i.e., low achievement and low intelligence).

Validity

Validity of construct relies on its uniqueness and utility

Validity of a discrepancy based model assumes that ability-achievement discrepant children are qualitatively distinct from regular “low achievers”.

Also assumes that identifying LD will lead to useful interventions specific to that group.

Assessing Validity of LD

Fletcher et al. (2001) describe means of validating LD diagnosis

PrognosisResponse to interventionDistinct cognitive profiles

Cognitive Domains

Meta-Analysis Hoskyn & Swanson (2000) Stuebing et al. (2002)

Stuebing et al.

Substantial overlap between IQ-discrepant & IQ-consistent poor readers

Differences between groups on several cognitive domains were negligible or small

Research indicates little need for using IQ tests in assessing LDs

Prognosis

Do LD students and ordinary low-achievers differ in development of reading ability?

O’Mally et al. (2002) found little evidence of differences between groups.

Several longitudinal studies found little or no differences in reading development between groups.

Response to Intervention

Research generally finds that discrepancy based LD vs. low-achievers do not respond differently to interventions.

Vellutino, Scanlon, Lyon (2000) reported that IQ-achievement discrepancy did not predict differences between groups on responses to intervention or which group would be more easily remediated.

Assessing Validity of LD:Summary Research indicates little or no differences

between discrepancy based LD students and ordinary low achievers based on:Cognitive ProfilesPrognosisResponse to intervention

Validity

Current definitions and diagnosis of LD students lacks uniqueness (distinct group of learners) and utility (clear differences in treatment and prognosis).

Traditional Assessment Practices Critiqued

No support for discrepancy based models of LD-prognosis, uniqueness, RTI, cog profiles

The reliability and validity of traditional classification practices is poor

(Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000; Reschly, & Ysseldyke, 2002)

Traditional Assessment Practices Critiqued- continued

“Assignment of differential treatment based on student ability, aptitude, or categorical condition has not produced promising results” (pg. 6)

Reschley & Ysseldyke, 2002, Best Practices in School Psychology

NYS proposed Amendments to Part 200 May 17, 2005

New definition of LD More structured eligibility determination

section Some guidance on assessment/diagnosis

NYS Learning Disability Definition proposed amendments 5/17/2005

A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifests itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected achievement and actual achievement determined on an individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning disability [**language to be repealed**]


(C) Eligibility Determinations

(2) A student shall not be determined eligible for special education if the determinant factor is:

(i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency (including oral reading skills) and reading comprehension strategies

(*new language proposed)

( Proposed Amendment to the Commissioner, pp. 22 of 67)



(6) Learning disabilities. In determining whether a student has a learning disability as defined in Section 200.1(zz)(6) of this Part the school district:

(i) May use a process that determines if the student responds to scientific, researched based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section; and




(ii) is not required to consider whether a student has a significant discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation or mathematical reasoning


Discussion Time- you make the call!

Potential problems and barriers to implementing the new regulations

Potential benefits related to the new regulations

Identification and Eligibility Determination for Students with Specific Learning DisabilitiesApril 25, 2003

RTI Assessment Model: NASP Recommendations

NASP Recommendations

Maintain current LD definition but change eligibility criteria

Eliminate ability-achievement discrepancy

Introduce multi-tier model with dual criteria- significantly low underachievement, insufficient response to intervention (RTI)

Criteria 1. Significantly Low Achievement States or School Districts may set criteria

for “significantly low achievement”

As in current law exclusionary criteria would still apply- not primarily the result of visual, hearing…..

Criteria 2. Insufficient Response to Intervention Despite at least 2 empirically based

interventions over a period of at least 6 weeks

Interventions administered in general education

Lack of response not due to low effort, cultural differences, LEP, or nonattendance

Characteristics of the Multi-Tier Assessment Model

Tier 1. High quality instructional and behavioral supports for all students in general education

Tier 1. Components include..

Research based instruction & behavior supports

Ongoing CBM of basic skills, instructional level matched to students skills

Remedial instruction and group interventions within general education

Characteristics of the Multi-Tier Model

Tier 2. Targeted intensive prevention or remediation services for struggling students


Research based/intense services targeted to the student’s individual needs

Time limited services Linked to a problem solving process including

general & Sp Ed teachers and support services personnel

Initiated though formal referral, parental notification and consent

Tier 2. Problem solving includes.

Precise charting of progress- general education interventions

Formal documentation of progress toward targeted goals

A verified level of intervention fidelity

Comparison to local norms- if available

Characteristics of the Multi-Tier Model

Tier 3. Comprehensive evaluation by a multi-disciplinary team to determine eligibility for special education and related services


Low achievement and insufficient response criteria met

Referral to a Multidisciplinary Team

MDT conducts a comprehensive evaluation

Characteristics of Evolving RTI Assessment Models Prevention focused

Focused on the “ecology”

not the child

Consultative based

Scientifically supported

Data-based (short term

empiricism)

Elements of an Evolved School Psychology-continued Emphasis on

intervention rather than diagnosis

Focused on the success of all students not just those referred for Special Education

With Emphasis on Prevention at Each Level

Universal Reduce new cases of academic failure/problem

behavior

Targeted Reduce current cases of academic failure/ problem

behavior

Intensive Reduce complications, intensity, severity of current

cases

Implications for Intervention

Assessment techniques should lend themselves to intervention

Assessments that measure important subskills, are repeatable and directly related to instruction

The Consultation Process

Problem Identification

Problem Analysis

Plan Implementation

Plan Evaluation

RTI Assessment & Monitoring

Tasks are scientifically based, relevant to the curriculum, frequently administered

Assess baseline and instructional level

Develop student goals

Assess student progress/ evaluate intervention plan

RTI in Literacy: Examples of new skills & resources

DIBELS

CBM

Scientifically based interventions (e.g., Big 5 ideas)

Peer tutoring

BEA

Graphing & progress monitoring


How consistent are these practices with the status quo in your district?

What will be required to implement change?

RTI Practices

Defining RTI Criteria

Issues in RTI Measurement

Timing

Standard for assessing response

The nature of the intervention

Source; Lynn Fuchs, 2003

Issues in measurement: Timing

Final Status- measure post intervention response. Did child meet a pre-determined performance level.

Growth- measure students periodically across the intervention. Base decisions on the amount of learning

Dual Discrepancy- measures both performance level and growth are measured


Issues in measurement: Standard for Response Normative- Response is compared to the full range of

student performance (need local norms).

Limited Norm- Response compared to others receiving the intervention (need intervention norms)

Benchmark- Response is compared to a predetermined goal (40 CRWs, Slope of 1.5 words per week)


Issues in measurement: Nature of the intervention General Education- validated instructional

practices with perhaps some limited adaptation for the student.

Intensive Instruction- Departs from GE, intense problem solving or standard tutoring protocols, usually in small groups.


NRCLD

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

Doug & Lynn Fuchs

LD Identification: Using CBM to Identify Students Who Are Not Responsive to Instruction: The Fuchs

Operationalize unresponsiveness as CBM dual-discrepancyCBM performance level is below classmatesCBM slope (rate of learning) is below

classmates

Rationale for Dual Discrepancy

All students do not ultimately achieve same degree of reading competence

Just because reading growth is low, student doesn’t automatically receive special education services

If learning rate is similar to other classmates, student is profiting from the regular education environment

LD Identification: Using CBM to Identify Students Who Are Not Responsive to Instruction

If a low-performing student does not grow where other students are thriving, special intervention needs to be considered

Alternative instructional methods must be tested to address mismatch between student’s learning requirements and requirements in conventional instructional program

CBM Teachers assess students’ academic

performance, using brief measures, on a frequent basis

The major purposes areTo describe rate of response to

instructionTo build more effective programs

What We Look For in CBM

INCREASING SCORES:

Student is becoming a better reader.

FLAT SCORES:

Student is not profiting from instruction and requires a change in the

instructional program.

Sarah’s Progress on Words Read Correctly

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Wo

rds

Re

ad C

orr

ect

ly

Sarah Smith Reading 2

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Jessica’s Progress on Words Read Correctly

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Wo

rds

Re

ad C

orr

ect

ly

Jessica Jones Reading 2


In RTI, CBM Used For …

Identifying Risk One-time screening Monitoring response to GE

Reversing Failure without SE Individual adaptations to class instruction Preventive tutoring

Designating response (or lack thereof) to identify LD

One-Time Screening with CBM

Students are tested at one point in time. Those scoring below a score are

designated at risk for RD. At-risk students enter preventative

tutoring.

CBM Screening to Designate Risk

K: < 15 sounds/min 1: < 15 words in text/min 2: < 50 words in text/min 3: < 70 words in text/min 4-6: < 15 maze replacements/2.5

min

CBM Monitoring of Response to GE

Administer weekly CBM to all students in the class.

Identify subset of children whose level of performance and rate of improvement is substantially less than class peers.

CLASS STATISTICS: ComputationTeacher: Mrs. Smith

Report through 3/17

Score

Average score 39.5

Standard deviation 12.6

Discrepancy criterion 26.9

Slope

Average slope +0.98

Standard deviation 0.53

Discrepancy criterion +0.45

Students identified with dual discrepancy criterion

Score Slope

Anthony Jones 19.0 +0.05

Erica Jernigan 18.0 +0.23

Identify students whose response to general education < class peers.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Donald Ross Computation 4

DIGITS

G38

Wait. Not enough scores for decision.You need at least 8 scores to make a decision.

A1

S1

M1

M2

M3

D1

D2

D3

F1

F2

Using CBM to test effectiveness of adaptations to class instruction

0

10

20

30

40

50


Laura Smith Computation 3

DIGITS

T

G

14

Uh-oh! Make a teaching change.Student's rate of progress is less than the goal line.

A1

S1

S2

M1

M2

D1

Student data trend < goal line:

Make a teaching change.

0

10

20

30

40

50


Brian Jones Computation 3

DIGITS

T

G

12

OK!! Raise the goal.Student's rate of progress exceeds the goal line

A1

S1

S2

M1

M2

D1

Student data trend > goal line:

Raise the goal.

NRCLD Preventive Tutoring

Content

Letter-sound recognition Decoding Sight word recognition Fluency building Partner reading Writing incorporated into correction

procedures

For Information about the OSEP LD Initiative http://www.nrcld.org/ www.air.org/ldsummit/ www.ld.org/advocacy/

CommonGround.doc www.erlbaum.com Identification of Learning Disabilities:

Research to Practice, Renée Bradley, Louis Danielson, and Daniel Hallahan (Eds.), 2002

For Information about Progress Monitoring Materials Reading probes

[email protected] Math probes and/or software:

“Monitoring Basic Skills Progress” Pro-Ed: 512-451-3246

Web math system: www.digitallearning.com

AIMSweb software, measures, admin & scoring guides

www.aimsweb.com or http://www.edformation.com

For Information about Progress Monitoring, Training & Research

National Center for Student Progress Monitoring [email protected]

Research Institute on Progress Monitoringhttp://progressmonitoring.org

Reading CBM: Fuchs

Kindergarten: Letter-Sound Fluency

Grade 1: Word-Identification Fluency

Grades 2-3: Passage Reading Fluency

Grades 4-6: Maze Fluency

RTI Assessment Pre-Literacy to LiteracyAssessment DIBELS: Roland Good, Ruth Kaminski, etc

NRCLD & National Center onStudent Progress Monitoring: Doug and Lynn Fuchs

DIBELS

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

Reading First Initiative

Result of The No Child Left Behind Act

Research based program built on information compiled by the National Reading Panel

Purpose: To ensure that more children receive effective reading instruction in the early grades http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html

DIBELS Information

One-minute fluency measures are individually administered to assess the development of pre-reading and early reading skills.

Benchmarks for K through 3rd Grade. Recently added 4-6 norms based on Fuchs work.

What does the DIBELS measure?

Specific skills addressed are: initial sound fluency letter naming fluencyphonemic segmentationnonsense word fluencyoral reading fluency

Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (http://reading.uoregon.edu)

Phonemic Awareness (DIBELS - Initial Sounds Fluency; Phoneme Segmentation Fluency)

Alphabetic Principle (DIBELS – Nonsense Word Fluency)

Fluency with Text (DIBELS – Oral Reading Fluency)

Vocabulary Comprehension

Initial Sound Fluency

ISF Example

This is breakfast, hamster, grass, and lipstick (point to pictures).

1. Which picture begins with /l/?

0 1

2. Which picture begins with /g/?

0 1

3. Which picture begins with /h/?

0 1

4. What sound does “breakfast” begin with?

0 1

Measures phonological awareness

Student is asked to identify picture that corresponds to beginning sound given orally by examiner

Asked to produce beginning sound of an item presented

Phonemic Segmentation Fluency PSF Example

duck /d/ /u/ /k/

gone /g/ /o/ /n/ 3/6

too /t/ /oo/

seen /s/ /ea/ /n/ ____/5

rush /r/ /u/ /sh/

hoot /h/ /oo/ /t/ ____/6

shop /sh/ /o/ /p/

bat /b/ /a/ /t/ ____/6

Measures ability to segment three and four phoneme words

Student is asked to say all sounds of a given word

Examiner models correct response if incorrect on first example

Letter Naming Fluency

LNF ExampleS l u n s X k U x i __/10l D H h T c r D g t __/10u a n r U w C M J i __/10n q R m t X O R B F __/10s d l d w a f E F W __/10X m z c j C Q I S b __/10k J B O W h q K s o __/10

Measures letter naming ability

Student is asked to name as many letters as they can in one minute

Student may ask examiner if they do not know a letter

Nonsense Word Fluency

NWF Example

y i z w a n z o c f u l m i k _/15

z u m n u f k u n r u v f o d _/15

v e p i j o p j u j s u g _/13

z u z o v v i t w a m b u k _/14

Measures letter-sound correspondence and blending ability

Student is asked to read make-believe words

Student may segment word into sounds or read word as a whole

Oral Reading Fluency

ORF Example

The Sand Castle

My uncle, my dad, and 5

my brother and I built 10

a giant sand castle at 15

the beach. First we 19

picked a spot far from 24

the big waves. Then we 29

got out buckets and 33 shovels. 34

Measures reading competence - accuracy and fluency (1st grade and up)

Student reads aloud for one minute

Omissions and substitutions counted as incorrect

Can use to measure story recall

Functions of the DIBELSClassroom Monitoring Compare student results in primary grade classrooms to the

appropriate benchmarks. Alter group instruction based on results.

Student Intervention and Monitoring

Tailor instruction for individual students not meeting benchmarks, the area(s) of concern are targeted for intervention.

Monitor student progress using probes available on the website.

DIBELS Classroom Monitoring Example

Three Kindergarten Classrooms at Readnwrite Elementary School assessed with the DIBELS at Mid year and End of the year

0%

50%

100%

% o

f st

uden

t pe

rform

ance

per

ca

tego

ry

ISF LNF PSF NWF

Subtest

Overall Kindergarten Mid-Year DIBELS Performance

Deficit Emerging Established

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f st

ud

ent

per

form

ance

per

ca

teg

ory

ISF M ISF E LNF M LNF E PSF M PSF E NWF M NWF E

Subtest

Overall Kindergarten DIBELS Performance: Mid to Year End

Deficit Emerging Established

ISF LNF PSF NWF

DIBELS Student Intervention and Monitoring Example

First grade student referred for low reading skills at Readnwrite Elementary School.

Assessed and monitored with the DIBELS

Case ExampleTest Instructional Benchmark Anna’s Performance Concern?

Initial Sounds or 25+ initials sounds/minute 13 initial sounds/minute Yes

Onset Fluency by winter of Kindergarten

Letter Naming 37 letters named/minute 43 letters/minute No

Fluency in fall of Kindergarten

Phonemic 35+ phonemes/minute 30 phonemes/minute Yes

Segmentation by spring of Kindergarten

Fluency

Nonsense Word 50+ letter sounds/minute 16 letter sounds/minute Yes

Fluency in winter of 1st grade

Based on this information, an intervention was developed to target phonemic awareness.

Next Step: Intervention

Began by practicing letter identification Then moved onto phonemes

Worked on elongating sounds

Broke phoneme sounds apart

Asked Anna to listen for phoneme sounds within words

Intervention con’t

Worked on blending sounds

Monitored progress once per week over several weeks

Graphed results with student

Certificate of achievement at the end of intervention period

Made intervention fun!

Intervention Progress Graph Anna's Case Example

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

9/2

1/0

4

9/2

8/0

4

10

/5/0

4

10

/12

/04

10

/19

/04

10

/26

/04

11

/2/0

4

11

/9/0

4

11

/16

/04

11

/23

/04

11

/30

/04

12

/7/0

4

12

/14

/04

12

/21

/04

12

/28

/04

1/4

/05

1/1

1/0

5

1/1

8/0

5

1/2

5/0

5

Date

Score

ISF

LNF

PSF

NWF

Where do I get more information?

The manual, probes, and benchmarks are available at no charge on the following website: http://dibels.uoregon.edu

You must register as a user to be able to download materials

Interventions

Early Reading Interventions


http://reading.uoregon.edu 5 Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (3 of

which are assessed by the DIBELS Measures)

Site provides interventions for teaching these Big Ideas in Beginning Reading

Teaching the Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (http://reading.uoregon.edu/instruction)

Organizing Principles: Earlier rather than later Schools, not just programs Evidence, not opinion

Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (http://reading.uoregon.edu)

Phonemic Awareness (DIBELS - Initial Sounds Fluency; Phoneme Segmentation Fluency)

Alphabetic Principle (DIBELS – Nonsense Word Fluency)

Fluency with Text (DIBELS – Oral Reading Fluency)

Vocabulary Comprehension

Strategic Integration of Beginning Reading Skills (http://reading.uoregon.edu/instruction)


www.pbskids.org Between the Lions http://pbskids.org/lions/

Or use search feature on PBS Kids site to

locate intervention ideas that are tied to the skills assessed by the DIBELS measures.

Research Findings – Between the Lions Mississippi Project (Grace & Prince, 2002)

Significant differences were made in several key reading skills of children at high risk of reading failure in two communities in Mississippi.

The students who participated in the project did not outperform their non-viewing peers on ALL measures, but meaningful differences were found and it was concluded that the series could be an important component of reading interventions.

Research Findings – Between the Lions Summative Evaluation (Linebarger, 2000)

Kindergarten children who watched the show outperformed those who did not by nearly 4 to 1 on measures of phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, and concepts of print.

Average performance for those who watched improved by 50% (pre-test to post-test) and 13% for those who did not watch.

Intervention IdeasPhonemic Awareness (adapted from www.pbskids.org/lions/)

Use wordplay in songs, poems, and oral language; and use words that rhyme or begin with the same sound to foster Phonological Awareness. Between the Lions examples:

Songs and poems help kids hear the sounds in words: Limericks spotlight simple rhyming words. Tongue twisters spotlight initial consonant sounds (alliteration). Other poems, songs, and wordplay draw attention to rhyming

and other sound patterns

Intervention Ideas Fluency

(from www.pbskids.org/lions/) Use guided, repeated oral reading

Repetition of predictable, rhythmic, and rhyming text

Encourage students to read predictable text in a series of booksSimple, predictable, repetitive text helps

learners gain momentum

RTI Practices

RTI in literacy with students in text

Students in Text: Assessment to Intervention Assessment DIBELS: ORF, Story Retell CBM Comprehension Measures

Intervention Ideas/Resources Peer Tutoring BEA Graphing Website

Curriculum Based Measurement

“Curriculum-based measurement, or CBM, is a method of monitoring student educational progress through direct assessment of academic skills. CBM can be used to measure basic skills in reading, mathematics, spelling, and written expression. It can also be used to monitor readiness skills. When using CBM, the instructor gives the student brief, timed samples, or "probes," made up of academic material taken from the child's school curriculum.” (Wright 2005)

CBM Progress Monitoring - Correctly Written Sequences

2824 26 28

31

20 20 18

9

5855

59

7478

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Trial

Num

ber o

r Per

cent

CS Errors Percent CS Linear (Percent CS)

Baseline Weekly Monitoring

Curriculum Based Measurement

Curriculum based assessment can be used to measure things such as reading fluency and comprehension, math fluency, spelling, and writing fluency

Many practitioners use it as a method to track student progress while others use it as a class wide screening method to help guide instruction and in curriculum development

Why use curriculum based Measurement? This method is very quick and simple to administer This type of assessment can be directly linked to

classroom instruction It provides information that teachers can use to modify

the instruction for individual students or a whole class Many people, such as teachers, school psychologists,

and paraprofessionals are able to collect the data

Why use curriculum based measurement? Teachers can quickly determine the average academic performance of a classroom The information can be used to monitor an individual

student or a whole class based on local norms It is a quick measure that provides information about

fluency and accuracy when used for reading The administration of CBM probes is quick to simple to

score, so the probes can easily be given multiple times weekly

Why use curriculum based assessment?

CBM is sensitive to short-term student gains that other measures aren’t able to pick up

Results of testing with CBM can more easily reflect a local average rather than comparing student performance to a national average

http://www.studentprogress.org/

http://www.interventioncentral.org/index.shtml

http://www.nrcld.org/

Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension can be assessed through the story recall subtest of the DIBELS It provides the child the opportunity to recall

details from a story that they have read in a one minutes time period.

This looks at the amount of information a student retained from a reading passage and is quickly and easily obtained


Reading fluency probes have also been created with three questions to be used as a comprehension check at the end of the probe. (found on

http://www.joewitt.org/ Reading%20Grade%20levels.htm)


Silent reading passages can also be used to measure comprehension by asking the student to choose the appropriate term based on a stories context

(Found on http://www.edformation.com/ promo/mcbm.htm)

Other passages have been created from popular children’s literature and can be found on

(Found on http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/ 456%20files.htm)

Peer Tutoring

Using CBM to assess reading levels and monitor progress

Research

According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2004), “as many as 40% of children in classrooms fail to make adequate reading progress.”Up to 25% of the adult population is illiterate

Peer tutoring can help through “oral reading with feedback and guidance which leads to meaningful improvements in reading for students (NRP, 2000).”

Research (cont.)

“Peer tutoring produced more than twice as much achievement compared to computer-assisted instruction, three times more than reducing the class size from 35 to 30 students, and almost four times more than lengthening the school day by one hour (Levin, Glass, and Meister, 1984).”

Research (cont.)

Benefits both the tutor and tutee academically (Garcia-Vazquez & Ehly, 1995).

Also used to foster social skills, positive relationships, and self-esteem for both (Mercer, et al., 2001).

Feasible and beneficial for students who are receiving services for learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, and developmental delays (Cook, Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Castro, 1986 )

Cross-Age Peer Tutoring

Variety of different models A form of cooperative learning under a teacher’s

guidance in which an older student who can often benefit from additional reinforcement of skills is paired with a younger student who may or may not need remediation (Thrope & Wood, 2000).

Supplements classroom instruction Adapted to the student’s pace, style, and level of

understanding (Jacobson, Thrope, et al., 2001).

Benefits of Cross-Age Peer Tutoring Tutors and tutees benefit academically

Analysis of ten cross-age peer tutoring pairs show consistent academic gains in both students (Thrope & Wood, 2000).

Tutee receives immediate feedback Error correction Answers to questions Encouragement Learns correct reading through modeling (Jacobson,

Thrope, et al., 2001) Tutors are viewed as role models (Thrope & Wood, 2000).

Core Guidelines

Schools have freedom in designing peer tutoring programs as they like, however a core set of guidelines are encouraged to increase reading fluency Select peer tutoring activities that supplement classroom

instruction Provide thorough training to tutors, ensuring they have

mastered the necessary techniques Use research based treatments for tutees Conduct periodic integrity checks Monitor the effectiveness of the program (CBM)

(Garcia-Vazquez et al., 1995 & Wright, 2004)

Case Example:New York Urban School District

Implemented under Safe Schools Healthy Students Initiative

Three urban elementary schools Facilitated by five SUNY Oswego graduate

students under the guidance of Jim Wright and Kristi Lorah-Cleary

Participants

Tutors are teacher nominated third and fourth graders who are reading within one grade level of their current grade placement

Tutees are teacher nominated second and third graders who are reading below grade level but at a minimum of early first grade

Tutor Training

Students took part in four 45 minute lessons covering the following:Peer tutoring and appropriate behaviorsHow to give praise to tutees “Listening While Reading” to build reading

fluencyReview of previous lessons and graduation

“Listening While Reading”

“Modeling by reading aloud helps students understand what fluency sounds like and is essential to its development” (Worthy & Broaddus, 2001). Benefits include gains in rate, accuracy, phrasing,

segmentation, and expression (Chomsky, 1978; Schreiber, 1987).

“Listening While Reading”

Book is placed so both the tutor and tutee can read from it

Tutor reads one page of text aloud to the tutee Tutee reads the same page aloud to the tutor while the

tutor provides error correction as needed At the end of each page, students are instructed to

verbally praise the tutee’s effort

Sessions

Total of 30 sessions will occur over the course of the programSites vary slightly30 minute sessions, three times per week

Progress Monitoring

Used to look at the effectiveness of the peer tutoring intervention

Each week the students are monitored using Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) reading probesProbes are used to determine whether the

number of correctly read words (CRW) per minute that a student reads increases over time indicating whether the intervention was effective or not

KeithGrade 2Monitoring Level 1:1

0

20

40

60

80

100

12010/1

1

10/2

6

11/1

0

11/2

5

12/1

0

12/2

5

1/9

1/2

4

2/8

2/2

3

3/9

3/2

4

4/8

4/2

3

5/8

5/2

3

6/7

Assesment Date

Co

rrectl

y R

ead

Wo

rds

Per

Min

ute

Baseline/CRW Monitoring/CRW

Tutee Progress Monitoring

Tutee Progress MonitoringAlysonGrade 2Monitoring Level 1:1

0

20

40

60

80

100

12010/1

1

10/2

6

11/1

0

11/2

5

12/1

0

12/2

5

1/9

1/2

4

2/8

2/2

3

3/9

3/2

4

4/8

4/2

3

5/8

5/2

3

6/7

Assesment Date

Co

rrectl

y R

ead

Wo

rds

Per

Min

ute


Tutor Progress Monitoring LeslieGrade 3Monitoring Level 2:2

020406080

100120140160

9/2

6

10/1

1

10/2

6

11/1

0

11/2

5

12/1

0

12/2

5

1/9

1/2

4

2/8

2/2

3

3/9

3/2

4

4/8

4/2

3

5/8

5/2

3

6/7

Assesment Date

Co

rrectl

y R

ead

Wo

rds

Per

Min

ute


Tutor Progress Monitoring ShannonGrade 4Monitoring Level 2:2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1409/2

6

10/1

1

10/2

6

11/1

0

11/2

5

12/1

0

12/2

5

1/9

1/2

4

2/8

2/2

3

3/9

3/2

4

4/8

4/2

3

5/8

5/2

3

Assesment Date

Co

rrectl

y R

ead

Wo

rds

Per

Min

ute


www.interventioncentral.org

For a complete description of the Peer Tutoring Project and materials necessary for implementation please visit the website created by Jim Wright- “Intervention Central”

Brief Experimental Analysis

CBM are useful methods to use in combination with BEA to identify the least intrusive and most effective intervention to use with a student.

What’s BEA?

A model used to predict which intervention will be most effective & feasible for a student

We "test-drive" different interventions before “buying one” to see which “runs best & gets best mileage”

BEA can be used with variety of academic or behavior problems

Focus Today: Academics

(particularly oral reading)

4 Main Steps…

Step 1. Collect Baseline

-Current performance level before new intervention

-Something to measure later performance against

-Can use: CBM, Classroom quizzes, worksheets, reading series , other

Step 2. Choose interventions to “test-drive”

Selected based on Main Reasons for Academic Difficulty

*Which is Based on Instructional Hierarchy(Effective Instruction Accuracy Fluency

Generalization)

Possible Reading Interventions

1) Motivation: choices and incentives

2) Motivation & Practice- 1 & passage preview

3) Motivation, Practice, & Modeling- 2 & LPP

4) Motivation, Practice, Modeling, & Help- 3 & error correction

5) Better Instructional match: easier materials

(Listed from easiest to most difficult and intrusive)

Step 3. Briefly “Test-Drive” interventions sequentially from least to most intrusive

measure student performance after each “Test Drive”

Administer & Monitor each Intervention…

3 Times Accounts for variability/checks for

consistency Like a “mini-replica” of the experiment This increases our confidence in uncovering

the best intervention.

4. Compare “test – drives”…

Graph outcome of each intervention

Ex. If using CBM: Graph CRW’s & errors for each intervention and compare.

Which intervention “ran the best”?

Which produced greatest increases in performance?

If 2 were equally effective, which was least intrusive?

Balance effectiveness with feasibility

BEA Goal is Reached

Appropriate intervention for student is identified…

Long-Term Implementation (Extended Analysis Phase)

Turn the identified intervention into a long-term intervention

Measure progress over time

Use same method as used for baseline

Use novel passages, quizzes, ect. that student hasn’t been given before

This allows us to assess if progress is generalizing to novel text

See if student is progressing as desired…

Alter intervention as needed.

Strengths of BEA Interventions are tailored to individual

student need

Saves time in long run by predicting effective/feasible interventions early on

Adaptable to use with variety of academic or behavior problems

Quick and easy

BEA Case Example: Haley

Reason for Referral

10-year old female

Fourth grade

Referred for reading difficulties

Baseline performance

CBM used

Instructional for reading at a late third grade level (3-2)

Reading 48 words correctly per minute with 5 errors

Brief Experimental Analysis

Interventions developed according to Main reasons for academic difficulty…

This BEA identically repeated three times

= three BEA trials or “mini-replicas”: (week 1, 2, & 3)

Allowed consultant to check for consistency/ account for variability

Outcome: CRWs Per Minute grouped by Intervention

40506070

8090

100110

Baseline Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3 Intervention 4

CR

Ws

Pe

r M

inu

te

Intervention Phase

Median Errors per Minute

0

1

2

3

4

5

Baseline Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3 Intervention 4

Er

ro

rs

P

er

M

in

Intervention Phase

Results Summary

Intervention 3 (motivation, practice and modeling)

was most consistently effective..

So it was implemented long-term

Extended Analysis Phase:

1. Level 3-2 book used.

2. LPP/RR/Motivation implemented.

3. 30 min.,2x/week, 5 weeks.

Monitoring Process

Progress measured after each session…

Median performance taken on three novel 3-2 level CBM passages

Haley graphed own daily performance on chart to see progress

Results: CRWs per Minute: Extended Phase

40

60

80

100

Baseline 3/22 3/25 3/29 4/1 4/8 4/19 4/22

CR

Ws

P

er

M

in

Date

48 to 97 CRWs per minute(Baseline to end of intervention)

#Errors ranged from 3 to 7 per minute during Extended Phase

Summary

Successful reading improvement over time through use of intervention specially designed for Haley’s individual needs.

Intervention identified using BEA model

Graphing and Templates

How to use graphs to display assessment and progress

monitoring data.

Templates

• Have been already constructed for your use in order to input data using DIBELS, CBA, BEA and Peer Tutoring.

• All you have to do is input the data and then click on the graph tab.

• You do not need to know how to construct your own graph – however if this is something you want to learn directions are included.

Examples of the templates and corresponding Graphs……

DIBELS Individual Student Graph

DIBELS Grade Level Assessment Template

DIBELS Grade Level Assessment Graph

CBM Template

CBM Graph

Adding a slope to CBM graph

• With Excel, No problem

Susie's Reading Progress

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1/1/1900 1/2/1900 1/3/1900 1/4/1900 1/5/1900 1/6/1900 1/7/1900 1/8/1900 1/9/1900 1/10/1900 1/11/1900

Date

Co

rre

ctl

y R

ea

d W

ord

s

CRW

Errors

Debbie's Reading Progress

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1/1/1900 1/2/1900 1/3/1900 1/4/1900 1/5/1900 1/6/1900 1/7/1900 1/8/1900 1/9/1900 1/10/1900 1/11/1900

Date

Co

rre

ctl

y R

ea

d W

ord

s

CRW

Errors

How to access these templates

www.oswego.edu/~mcdougal/


What are the most prominent needs that must be met in order for you to respond to the RTI initiative? (training, administrative/district support, resources)

RESOURCES

http://www.joewitt.org/Reading%20Grade%20levels.htm This website has curriculum based assessment probes for

students in first through fifth grade with comprehension questions at the end of each probe. It also offers instructions for interventions with students as well as progress monitoring.

http://www.edformation.com/promo/mcbm.htm Pre-made ORF passages may be purchased from the Aimsweb

site linked below. These passages are based on grade-level fiction stories written for the purpose of assessing students' reading skills.

You can purchase close passages for Curriculum based assessment monitoring for grades 1 through 8.

RESOURCES

http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/456%20files.htmThe passages found here are taken from well

known children's literature. There are about 20 passages at each grade level for grades 4, 5, and 6.

The following resources can be found on www.interventioncentral.org

a website created by Jim Wright.

http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/cbaManual.pdf This website provides a comprehensive manual

created for teachers. It provides administration guidelines as well as examples of monitoring probes.

http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/okapi.shtml OKAPI creates CBA reading probes from text. A short

piece of text can be entered and the OKAPI program will analyze the difficulty level of the text as well as create a CBA probe to be used in progress monitoring. This is an extremely quick and simple toll to use.

The following resources can be found on www.interventioncentral.org

a website created by Jim Wright.

http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/cbmwarehouse.shtmlCBA Warehouse “A world of CBM resources

under one roof…” http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/chartdog_2_

0/chartdog.phpThis allows graphing of information collected

through curriculum based assessment quickly and easily.

REFERENCES

http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/cbaManual.pdf

http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rbrown/Web-Pages/CBM_ReadingPP/CBM-Reading.html

References

Chafouleas, S.M., Riley-Tillman, T.C., & McGrath, M.C. (2002). Making successful intervention decisions through testing intervention packages: A manual for conducting brief experimental analysis (BEA).

Chomsky, C. (1978). When you still can’t read in third grade: After decoding, what? In S.J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 13-30). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Cook, S.B., Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Castro, G.C. (1986). Handicapped students as tutors. The Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 483-492.

Daly, E.J.,III, Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.

Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (2004). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Accelerating growth in reading and mathematics. Communiqué (insert). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

References Cont…

Garcia-Vazquez, E. & Ehly, S. (1995). Best practices for facilitating peer tutoring programs. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology- III (pp. 403-411). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Gravois, T.A., & Gickling, E.E. 2002)Best Practices in Curriculum Based Assessment. Best Practices in School Psychology IV,56,885-898.

Haring, N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Eaton, M.D., & Hansen, C.L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Howell, K.W., Kurns, S., & Antil, L. 2002)Best Practices in Using Curriculum Based Evaluation. Best Practices in School Psychology IV,48,753-771.

References Cont…

Jacobson, J., Thrope, L., & Fisher, D. Cross-age tutoring: A literacy improvement approach for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(6), 528-536. Retrieved on March 27, 2004 HW Wilson.

Levin, H., Glass, G., & Meister, C. (1984). Cost effectiveness of four educational Interventions. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance, Stanford University.

Mercer, C.D. & Mercer, A.R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

References Cont…

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the Subgroups. Washington DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Schreiber, P.A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s syntactic processing. In R.Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 243-270. New York: Academic Press.

Shinn Mark. R.(2002)Best Practices in Using Curriculum Based Measurement in a Problem Solving Model. Best Practices in School Psychology IV,44,371-397.

Thrope, L., & Wood, K. (2000). Cross-age tutoring for young adolescents. The Clearing House, 73(4), 239-243. Retrieved March 27, 2004 from ProQuest.

References Cont…

Worthy, J. & Broaddus, K. (2001). Fluency beyond the primary grades: From group performance to silent, independent reading. Reading Teacher, 55(4), pp. 334-344. Retrieved March 11, 2005 from EbscoHost.

Wright, J. (2004). Curriculum based measurement: A manual for teachers. Retrieved on February 14, 2005 from www.interventioncentral.org

rti in 2005 understanding/diagnosing reading disabilities within a rti model marilyn korth,...

Documents

ld assessment

intervention slide

literacy slide

new approach slide

traditional model

isnt ld

promise of ld future

special education programs