Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Response to Intervention www.interventioncentral.org Intervention Planning, Documentation, & Follow- Through Jim Wright www.interventioncentral.org.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Response to Intervention www.interventioncentral.org Intervention Planning, Documentation, & Follow- Through Jim Wright www.interventioncentral.org."— Presentation transcript:

1 Response to Intervention Intervention Planning, Documentation, & Follow- Through Jim Wright

2 Response to Intervention 2 Dimensions of Interventions: Treatment Strength “By strength of treatment, we refer to the a priori likelihood that the treatment could have its intended outcome. Strong treatments contain large amounts in pure form of those ingredients leading to change. Assessments of strength are made independently of knowedge of outcome of treatment in any given case.” p. 156 Source: Yeaton, W. H. & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49,

3 Response to Intervention 3 Dimensions of Interventions: Treatment Packages “Treatments are very often packaged together in a kind of ‘something for everybody’ manner…, thereby minimizing the issue of individual differences [between clients]. However, such a strategy has multiple shortcomings…Any effort to bolster together individual treatments of unknown utility is potentially wasteful…If a package program is unsuccessful, we are unable to say which elements are critical to its success.” p. 159 Source: Yeaton, W. H. & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49,

4 Response to Intervention Writing Quality ‘Problem Identification’ Statements

5 Response to Intervention 5 Writing Quality ‘Problem Identification’ Statements A frequent problem at RTI Team meetings is that teacher referral concerns are written in vague terms. If the referral concern is not written in explicit, observable, measurable terms, it will be very difficult to write clear goals for improvement or select appropriate interventions. Use this ‘test’ for evaluating the quality of a problem- identification (‘teacher-concern’) statement: Can a third party enter a classroom with the problem definition in hand and know when they see the behavior and when they don’t?

6 Response to Intervention 6 Writing Quality ‘Problem-Identification’ Statements: Template Format for Writing RTI Team Teacher Concerns Conditions when the behavior is observed or absent Description of behavior in concrete, measurable, observable terms During large-group instruction The student calls out comments that do not relate to the content being taught. When reading aloudThe student decodes at a rate much slower than classmates. When sent from the classroom with a pass to perform an errand or take a bathroom break The student often wanders the building instead of returning promptly to class.

7 Response to Intervention 7 Writing Quality ‘Teacher Referral Concern’ Statements: Examples Needs Work: The student is disruptive. Better: During independent seatwork, the student is out of her seat frequently and talking with other students. Needs Work: The student doesn’t do his math. Better: When math homework is assigned, the student turns in math homework only about 20 percent of the time. Assignments turned in are often not fully completed.

8 Response to Intervention 8 Judging the Intensity of Interventions: Tier I, II, or III?

9 Response to Intervention 9 Why Attempt to Judge the ‘Intensity’ of Interventions? Judging the intensity of interventions in advance ensures that intervention plans match the RTI Tier in which they are being used.

10 Response to Intervention 10 Avoiding the ‘Intervention Trap’ When planning Tier II (individualized) interventions, RTI Teams should take care to ensure that those plans are feasible and maintainable in general-education settings. If a Tier II intervention is so ambitious as to resemble a Special Education (Tier III) program, the team may find that the student responds well to the plan but would still lack information about whether the student requires more support than general education can offer. And the plan may not be maintainable!

11 Response to Intervention 11 Intervention Intensity Rating Form (pp )

12 Response to Intervention On a per-pupil basis, the cost to purchase or effort needed to create intervention materials Intervention materials not needed or do not entail significant expense or effort Intervention materials required but can be obtained at a modest cost or with reasonable effort Intervention materials per pupil are costly or require substantial effort to create 4. Amount of preparation required for each session of the intervention Little or no preparation is needed Some preparation is needed (up to 15 minutes per session) Substantial preparation is needed (more than 15 minutes per session) 9. Potential of the intervention to distract other students or disrupt their learning Intervention can be implemented with little or no distraction of other students or disruption to their learning Intervention is likely to result in mild distraction of other students or disruption to their learning Intervention is likely to result in significant distraction of other students or disruption to their learning Sample Intervention Intensity Rating Form Items

13 Response to Intervention 13 Intervention Intensity Rating Form Guidelines for Interpreting Results If 7 or more of your ratings on this 10-item form fall under any single Tier, it is likely that the intervention has a level of intensity matching that Tier as well. An intervention with 8 checks under the Tier II column, for example, should be considered a Tier II intervention. If you have a mixed pattern of ratings—with no single column containing 7 or more checks—count up the number of checks in each column. The intervention should be considered equivalent in intensity to the highest column that contains 3 or more checks. (Tier I is the lowest column. Tier III is the highest.) An intervention with more than 3 checks under the Tier III column, for example, would be considered a Tier III intervention.

14 Response to Intervention 14 Evaluating ‘Intervention Follow-Through’ (Treatment Integrity)

15 Response to Intervention 15 Treatment Integrity Activity In your ‘elbow groups’, discuss the following question: How does your school measure the quality of intervention follow-through in classrooms?

16 Response to Intervention 16 Why Monitor Intervention Follow-Through? If the RTI Team does not monitor the quality of the intervention follow-through, it will not know how to explain a student’s failure to ‘respond to intervention’. Do qualities within the student explain the lack of academic or behavioral progress? Did problems with implementing the intervention prevent the student from making progress?

17 Response to Intervention 17 What Are Potential Barriers to Assessing Intervention Follow-Through? Direct observation of interventions is the ‘gold standard’ for evaluating the quality of their implementation. However: Teachers being observed may feel that they are being evaluated for global job performance Non-administrative staff may be uncomfortable observing a fellow educator to evaluate intervention follow-through It can be difficult for staff to find time to observe and evaluate interventions as they are being carried out

18 Response to Intervention 18 Intervention Script Builder: pp

19 Response to Intervention 19 Teacher Intervention Evaluation Log: p.112

20 Response to Intervention 20 END


Download ppt "Response to Intervention www.interventioncentral.org Intervention Planning, Documentation, & Follow- Through Jim Wright www.interventioncentral.org."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google