Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Implementing RtI with Integrity: The IC Team Experience

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Implementing RtI with Integrity: The IC Team Experience"— Presentation transcript:

1 Implementing RtI with Integrity: The IC Team Experience
Todd Gravois, Ph.D. University of Maryland © ICAT Resources

2 Structuring the Discussion:
Conceptualizing Response to Intervention (RTI) Fidelity of what? IC Team Model within RTI IC Team Approach to Measuring Implementation Integrity © ICAT Resources

3 Multiple Approaches to RtI:
Protocol Approach Pre-specified universal and progress measures Non-responder criteria established Non-responders identified Non-responders assigned to increasingly intense services Adoption of standard protocol/ intervention practices Continued measurement of student performance Problem Solving Approach Consultation/ problem solving between classroom teacher and service provider Specified problem solving steps Data-based decision making that includes baseline, goals, charted data Decisions made relative to the goals and progress made within the classroom environment Other Often a combination or hybrid of the other two © ICAT Resources

4 The Importance of Implementation Integrity: Protocol Approach
Prior to considering whether a program is effective, there is a need to determine that the critical components are implemented with integrity…. A program must be delineated in specific terms that allows replication across settings and situations. There must be enough specificity as to the elements required, either alone or in combination, to constitute the existence of the particular program. © ICAT Resources

5 Three -Tier Model of School Supports
Eligibility Process: Discrepancy Model and/or Response to Intervention Quality Classroom Instruction Quality/ Standardized/ Documented/ Interventions Intensive Instruction Universal Screening: Identify those students not benefiting from the core curriculum © ICAT Resources

6 Fidelity of What? Eligibility Process: Discrepancy Model and/or
Fidelity of the Tier 3 Intensive Interventions? Quality Classroom Instruction Quality/ Standardized/ Documented/ Interventions Intensive Instruction Universal Screening: Identify those students not benefiting from the core curriculum Eligibility Process: Discrepancy Model and/or Response to Intervention Fidelity of the decision-making process? Fidelity of the Tier 2 Interventions? Fidelity of the progress monitoring process? Fidelity of classroom instruction? © ICAT Resources

7 The Importance of Implementation Integrity: Problem Solving Approach
Prior to considering whether a program is effective, there is a need to determine that the critical components are implemented with integrity…. A program must be delineated in specific terms that allows replication across settings and situations. There must be enough specificity as to the elements required, either alone or in combination, to constitute the existence of the particular program. © ICAT Resources

8 IC Teams: Fidelity of What?
Starting point is the “match” between the students’ entry skills and the quality of instruction within the classroom (tier 1). Focus is to support high quality instructional practices (regardless of students’ assignment to tier). Recognizes that principles of quality instruction are the same regardless of tier. Recognizes assignment (or lack of assignment) of student to a tier does not resolve the need for teacher support. Recognizes that measures of student progress are necessary, yet alone are insufficient to improve teacher and student performance. Quality Classroom Instruction Quality/ Standardized/ Documented/ Interventions Intensive Instruction Instructional Consultation Teams Gravois, 2006 © ICAT Resources

9 IC Team Program Goal Enhance/ Improve/ Increase
Student and Staff Performance. Objectives Develop a systematic support network within each building, including a trained IC Team Facilitator and trained Instructional Consultation Team. Enhance teachers’ skills in and application of best practices of instructional assessment and delivery Develop school-wide norms of collaboration and problem-solving Utilize data for classroom and school decisions Begin with a brief description of the IC Team model and the critical components, an essential aspect of evaluating integrity of a model. © ICAT Resources

10 IC Team Critical Components
Process Variables: - Collaborative/ Reflective Communication - Systematic Problem Solving - Curriculum based assessment Delivery System: Representative Team Request for Assistance Case Management Documentation Evaluation Design: -Training Implementation Outcomes © ICAT Resources

11 IC Team Request for Assistance
Teacher Name: ________________________________ Date of Request: ______________________________ I need assistance with ____________________________ ______________________________________________________ I am available to meet (times and location): __ Does the parent/ family share your concern(s)? Yes No Don’t know © ICAT Resources

12 IC Team Case Management Configuration
CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CLASSROOM TEACHER Students CASE MANAGER TEAM MEMBERS: Administrator General Educators Special Educator School Psychologist Guidance Counselor Health Provider Social Worker Others The unique feature is that teachers work with case managers who are team members. Thus, once a referrl is received, an individual team member volunteers to work one-on-one with the teacher serving as a case manager. © ICAT Resources

13 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS
IC Team Problem Solving Steps CONTRACTING PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS Create a shared understanding of the concern Define concerns in specific and observable terms Conduct Instructional Assessment to ensure a MATCH PRIORITIZE BASELINE GOALS STRATEGY/ INTERVENTION DESIGN STRATEGY/ INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY/ INTERVENTION EVALUATION © ICAT Resources CLOSURE

14 Critical IC Team Case Manager Skills
Systematic Problem Solving Process Collaborative & Reflective Communication Instructional & Behavioral Assessment Communication-- problem solving--- instructional/ behavioral assessment. © ICAT Resources

15 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS
IC Teams: Fidelity of What? Fidelity of the assessment process used choose the right priority? Fidelity of the process to specify the concern in order to assess? CONTRACTING PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS Create a shared understanding of the concern Define concerns in specific and observable terms Conduct Instructional Assessment to ensure a MATCH Fidelity of decision process to prioritize? PRIORITIZE BASELINE GOALS Fidelity of the match between intervention and the stated priority? Fidelity of the intervention implementation? STRATEGY/ INTERVENTION DESIGN Fidelity of the data and decisions used to evaluate the strategy? STRATEGY/ INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY/ INTERVENTION EVALUATION © ICAT Resources CLOSURE

16 Specifying IC Team Program Components
There are two measurable components of the IC Team model. Each is comprised of seven dimensions, for a total of 14, that further explain and define the component Collaborative Process refers to the stage-based method of problem-solving utilizing interactive, nonhierarchical relationships among processionals with diverse areas of expertise is routinely utilized by the staff for classroom-based problems. The LOI-R measures the integrity with which team members use the collaborative Instructional Consultation process for each case. Delivery System refers to the structure by which the collaborative consultation process is delivered by a team to a school is developed and maintained. The LOI-R measures the integrity of the team structure, procedures used to collect data and monitor student progress, and ease of access by classroom teachers to the team. © ICAT Resources

17 Collaborative Process Dimensions
Clear communication between the case manager and referring teacher characterize all interactions. Contracting- results in a mutual agreement to collaboratively engage in the problem-solving process. Problem Identification and Analysis- results in a specific and measured statement of desired and actual performance for the referred child. Strategy/ Intervention Design- results in specific and detailed recommendations for effective teaching practices to implement. Implementation of Intervention- assures integrity in the implementation of the specific strategy developed in the preceding stage. Evaluation and follow-up of intervention- results in data being used to determine level of progress. Instructional Assessment (i.e., Gickling’s CBA model) - assessments are conducted within the student’s daily curricula tasks and are used to support all states of problem-solving including determining baseline levels and monitoring on-going performance to determine the success/ failure of an intervention. © ICAT Resources

18 Delivery System Dimensions
Representative Support Team comprised of principal, teachers and representation of school-based resources. Request for Assistance process by which teachers and staff can access the team. Requesting teacher participates in all problem solving activities. System’s manager who receives requests, organizes the meeting and records case progress. Case organization and management. Case managers are assigned and responsible for supporting teachers who requests assistance. Team functioning includes regular meetings and on-going training for team members. Documentation and use of forms. A tracking process to document the delivery system. Student Documentation Forms are completed for each case. © ICAT Resources

19 Measuring IC Team Program Implementation
The IC Teams Level of Implementation Scale (LOI-R Scale) measures the degree and level of integrity that the Collaborative Process and the Delivery System components of the IC Team model are actually being implemented. The LOI-R is multi-source, multi-method and includes a series of interviews and record reviews which provide information on the collaborative process and delivery system involved in the Instructional Consultation Team model. Team Survey Principal Interview Case Manager Interview(s) Referring Teacher Interview(s) Documentation/Form Review(s) © ICAT Resources

20 Administering and Scoring the LOI-R
All Case Managers are interviewed for at least one case (randomly selected if more than one case conducted). Teachers and Case Mangers are interviewed separately. Responses receive a positive score if: There is evidence of accuracy in implementing the dimension…. AND There is agreement between Teacher and Case Consultant All interviews are aggregated to provide a single IC Team LOI Profile-- no individual scores are provided. Benchmark of 80% is considered adequate across individual dimensions and overall LOI. © ICAT Resources

21 Sample LOI-R Items Case Manager Teacher
At your first meeting, how did you explain the problem-solving process to the teacher? Describe the initial referral concern. What concerns did you and the teacher focus upon? What was the current/ baseline performance and goals established for the concern(s)? How was the effectiveness of the strategy/ intervention to be monitored? Teacher What was your understanding of what the IC Team process would be after your first meeting with the Case Manager? Describe the initial referral concern. What concerns did you and the case manager focus upon? What was the current/ baseline performance and goals established for the concern(s)? How was the effectiveness of the strategy/ intervention to be monitored? © ICAT Resources

22 © ICAT Resources

23 Original Construction of LOI (Fudell, 1992)
Content Validity established through panel of judges Inter-rater reliability of LOI established (average of .90) Test-retest reliability established: .83 Revision of LOI-R (Fudell, Gravois & Rosenfield, 1996) Item revisions Scoring procedures standardized and reporting procedures developed and standardized Training for practitioner administration and scoring (i.e., IC Team Facilitator) McKenna (2005) Validation Study of Collaborative Process Comparison of interview results (self-report) to taped consultation behavior (observed) Results were no significant differences between scores of taped sessions and scores from interviews of same participants. As early as 1992, Rosalind Fudell’s doctoral dissertation was based on the development of a scale, called the LOI, to evaluate the level of implementation of a collaborative teacher support team model, then part of Project Link in Pennsylvania. The scale was based on behavioral indicators of critical dimensions of Project Link, as defined by project personnel. With the development of IC Teams in the 1990s, the scale was revised (Fudell, Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996), and is the focus here. © ICAT Resources

24 Comprehensive Program Evaluation of IC Teams
Evaluation of Training Reaction (Immediate Feedback on Effectiveness) Learning (Pre-Post Assessment of Knowledge/ Concepts) Behavior (Simulated Exercises) Evaluation of Implementation Level of Implementation Scale Review of Student Documentation Form Evaluation of Specified Outcomes Teacher Satisfaction/ Impact on Teaching Goal Attainment Scaling Referral Patterns for Special Education Academic/ Behavioral Achievement Measures Annual Data: Placements; suspensions; office referrals, etc. © ICAT Resources

25 References Fudell, R. (1992). Level of implementation of teacher support teams and teachers’ attitudes toward special needs students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Temple University, Philadelphia. Fudell, R., Gravois, T., & Rosenfield, S. (1996). Level of Implementation Scale-Revised. In S. Rosenfield & T. Gravois. Instructional Consultation Teams: Collaborating for change (pp ). New York: Guilford. Gravois, T., & Rosenfield, S. (2002). A multi-dimensional framework for evaluation of Instructional Consultation Teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 5-29. McKenna, S.A. (2005). A validity investigation of the Instructional Consultation Teams Level of Implementation Scale-Revised. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Rosenfield (1987) Instructional consultation.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rosenfield & Gravois (1996). Instructional Consultation Teams: Collaborating for change. New York: Guilford. Vail, P. L. (1996). Instructional Consultation Teams: Analysis of level of implementation over two years and its relationship with team collaboration. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. © ICAT Resources


Download ppt "Implementing RtI with Integrity: The IC Team Experience"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google