Data Based Decision Making Measuring Responsiveness to Intervention

Data Based Decision Making Measuring Responsiveness to Intervention

What is a significant change in performance? • One that results in meaningful change. • One that significantly reduces the gap. • One that meets your goal.

What is a non-responder? • Median Split of slop on standardized assessment instruments (e. g. Vellutino, 1996; WRMT) • Normalized Scores (e. g. Torgeson, 2001; 90 or better on WRMT) – Most Lenient • Dual Discrepancy (Speece and Case, 2001; Slope and level = 1 sd below mean) • End of year benchmark (e. g. Good, 2001) – Most stringent

Dual Discrepancy • Discrepant from peers at data collection point 1 (e. g. fall benchmark) • Discrepancy continues or becomes larger at point 2 (e. g. winter benchmark) – This is referred to a student’s rate of improvement (ROI)

State Discrepancy • Be objective. Does it refer to an observable characteristic of behavior? • Be clear. Can others read the discrepancy statement and observe it easily? • Calculate the discrepancy ratio – Include statement of student’s current level of performance. – Include statement of the expected level of performance (e. g. , peer data, teacher expectation).

Discrepancy Ratios: Elementary Example Helps to quantify how many times the student’s current level of performance varies from that of his/her peers. – In order to calculate a discrepancy ratio use the following formula: Peer Behavior Target Student Behavior – Example: When given a 4 th grade probe, Jessica is reading 80 correct words per minute while average 4 th grade peers are reading 145 correct words per minute. Peer Behavior = Target Student Behavior 145 80 = 1. 81 x

Discrepancy Ratios Enables team to make decisions about levels of support and resource from the start. Generally speaking… – A student who is 1. 5 x discrepant from his/her peers is appropriate for the problem-solving team. – If a student is significantly discrepant from peers, additional problemsolving and intervention resources may be appropriate. – Example: Jessica is 1. 81 x discrepant from peers and MAY benefit from problem solving.

Discrepancy Ratios: Secondary Example-Negative Behavior Helps to quantify how many times the student’s current level of performance varies from that of his/her peers. – In order to calculate a discrepancy ratio for undesirable behavior use the following formula: Target Student Behavior Peer Behavior – Example: Jessica has been disruptive 15 times per week while the average 10 th grade peer is disruptive 3 times per week. Target Student Behavior Peer Behavior = 15 3 = 5 x

Provides a way to evaluate student outcomes and the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce initial performance discrepancies. Name Grade Area Initial Performance Discrepancy Follow Up Performance Discrepancy Rate of Progress Outcome Decision Bill 3 Reading 3. 5 X 2. 2 X 2. 3 WRC per week Satisfactory Maintain Intervention Susie 6 Math 1. 2 X NA NA No Severe Problem Jess 10 Behavior 5 X 4. 8 X . 2 x change Insufficient Progress, Recycle through process

What is significant Discrepancy? • • 1. 5 times discrepant. 5 SD 25 th percentile 90% probability not passing high stakes testing – criterion based decision making

Writing Goals and Objectives

Goals/Objectives What are Instructional Objectives and How are they Used? A. Behavioral Objectives: Statement of skill that students are expected to know at the end of some period of instruction. * Method of measurement should also be stated in meaningful observable methods. * Should state: Performance, condition, criteria and when possible the date. e. g. Given a worksheet containing 20 3 digit by 2 digit multiplication problems that require carrying, students will be able to complete all of them with 90% accuracy within 20 minutes.

Goal Setting • Based on last three data points • Based on split plot • Based on intra-individual performance (Addition predicting subtraction) • Based on group of students (benchmarking and rate of improvement) • Based on team decision

Determining Long range Goal • Multiply number of weeks that you will be monitoring by the criterion (Expected ROI). • Add this number to the median baseline point • Example: – Median baseline point = 35 – Number of weeks = 10 – Expected rate of growth (based on norms or suggestion)

Baseline Intervention

Writing IEP Goals • Long range Goal In ___ (total # weeks) when presented with math problems form (curriculum and grade level) ____ (Student’s name) will perform ____(long range goal) with _____ errors or fewer.

Writing IEP Goals • Short term objective Each successive week, when presented with a random selection from _____ (curriculum and grade level) ____ (Student’s name) will perform at an average increase of _____ DCM and no increase in errors.

Progress Monitoring

How long to implement intervention? • 10 -15 weeks – Perhaps a quarter system approach?

How long before tweaking? • 3 data points: Above or below line? • 4 Data points: 3 weeks of instruction and 6 points of data collected: Examine 4 most recent points • Trend line: 4 weeks of instruction and 8 data points collected construct trend line • Remember: – Stability – Trend – Level

Time to Triage • What do you with: – Jason, 8 year old African American male who is 1. 7 x discrepant from grade level peers in math and 1. 5 times discrepant from grade level peers in reading? Grades are below average in both subject areas. Jason is at the 40 th percentile in reading and math within his classroom.

Decision Making Time • What do you do with: – Jason, after 10 weeks of Standard Protocol Intervention and his rate of improvement (ROI) is 2 wcpm in reading compared to 1. 5 wcpm ROI in reading but he is still only at the 40 th percentile in reading compared to grade level peers?

Time to Triage • What do you with: – Jason, 8 year old African American male who is 1. 7 x discrepant from grade level peers in math and 1. 5 times discrepant from grade level peers in reading? Grades are below average in both subject areas. Jason is at the 15 th percentile in reading and math within his classroom.

Decision Making Time • What do you do with: – Jason, after 10 weeks of Standard Protocol Intervention and his rate of improvement (ROI) is 1. 25 wcpm in reading compared to 2. 0 wcpm in reading and he is still only at the 15 th percentile in reading compared to grade level peers?

Generic Problem Solving Model • • Problem Identification Problem Analysis Problem Definition Goal Setting Intervention Selection Intervention Implementation Intervention Evaluation

Problem Identification • Problems in general area: (e. g. , reading, math, writing, spelling) • Compare to same grade peers • If discrepant from peers then consider problem analysis.

Problem Analysis • Probe/assessment to determine basic skills that demonstrate and/or accuracy issues • Specificity • Consider RIOT and ICEL and IPF

Problem Definition • Must contain: – Measurable and observable language (e. g. , number problems per minute) – Specify conditions (e. g. worksheet, verbal? ) – Specify level (e. g. , percent, rate, compared to peers) – Specify date

Writing a Hypothesis • Provide the discrepancy statement • Add because… at the end of the discrepancy statement and insert your hypothesis. • The hypothesis should be specific, observable, and measurable. – Example: Beth is on-task for 35% of intervals while peers are on-task 87% of intervals during a 20 -minute observation during direct instruction in Math class, because she is escaping the Math work which is above her instructional level.

Goal Setting • • • Often overlooked Should be based on problem definition May include norms, teacher input Should specify date deadline Should specify level cutoff Should be done before considering interventions

Intervention Selection • Should be linked to the assessment • Likely to focus on basic learning/behavioral principles • Should have empirical support and/or be strongly influenced by research • Keystone intervention, effort, time, difficulty, acceptability

Intervention Implementation • Integrity is a key issue

Intervention Evaluation • Did you meet your goal? *If yes, then intervention effective *If no, then not educationally significant Return to intervention selection • Frequent progress monitoring is critical

A Systems-Level Problem A team at‘Cardinal School’ noticed that approximately twice the number of referrals for Special Education consideration for difficulty in reading had come from the 3 rd grade during the first four months of school than in the prior three years.

Step 1: Problem Identification Question: What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring? A. List problem behavior(s) and prioritize. B. Collect baseline data on primary area of concern (target student and peer). • Record Review • Interview • Observation • Testing C. State discrepancy between target student performance and peer performance.

all students included sampling of students

Problem Identification Data 160 Box Plot S plit By: Grade 140 120 100 FIRS T S ECOND 80 THIRD 60 40 20 0 Winter WRC Grade 1 Winter WRC Grade 2 Winter WRC Grade 3

Problem Identification Statement of Discrepancy: 15 of the 3 rd grade students fall below the 25 th percentile in reading fluency. Of those, 12 are also not making adequate rates of progress.

Problem Analysis Through the Years: Class of 2012 160 Box Plot S plit By: Grade 140 120 100 FIRS T S ECOND 80 THIRD 60 40 20 0 Winter WRC Grade 1 Winter WRC Grade 2 Winter WRC Grade 3

Problem Analysis Current Grade Level Data 160 Box Plot S plit By: Grade 140 120 100 FIRS T S ECOND 80 THIRD 60 40 20 0 Winter WRC Grade 1 Winter WRC Grade 2 Winter WRC Grade 3

Investigate WHY the problem exists: - Did the referred students exhibit reading difficulties before the 3 rd-grade? - Yes, review of CBM data indicate that the referred students were roughly the same lowest performing group in 1 st and 2 nd grade. - Do the current 1 st and 2 nd graders show a similar pattern? - Yes, CBM data from the current year indicate groups of 1 st and 2 nd grade students not making adequate rates of progress.

Problem Analysis A significant portion of 3 rd grade students are not making adequate rates of progress in reading BECAUSE…. . Not all students established satisfactory reading trajectories during Kindergarten and 1 st grade BECAUSE?

Kindergarten Instructional Planning Form Activity Materials Arrangement Time Motivational Strategy • Language Exposure • Books • Whole Group • Teacher Led • 50 min / wk • Praise for attention • Manipulatives • Whole Group • Books • Small Group • Worksheets • Independent • 30 min / wk • Reminding • 20 min / wk • Praise for appropriate behavior • Letter Naming • Independent Reading • Books • Individual

First Grade Instructional Planning Form Activity Materials • Silent Reading • Books • Choral Reading • 1 st Grade Teacher • Word Walls Arrangement • Independent Time Motivational Strategy • 10 min / day • Praise for appropriate behavior • Whole Group • 10 min / day • Word Cards • Whole Group • 10 min / day • Verbal Feedback • Praise for participating

A significant proportion of 3 rd grade students are not making adequate rates of progress in reading BECAUSE……. . • Not all students established satisfactory reading trajectories during Kindergarten & 1 st grade BECAUSE……. • Current early elementary reading curriculum places little focus on systematic pre-literacy skill instruction (i. e. phonemic awareness and phonics). To change trajectories, we must intervene systematically, strategically, and early.