1. Response to Intervention Overview
Kathy McNamara, Ph.D.
Cleveland State University
Consultant, PSI

2. Why RTI?
Unacceptably high rates of placement in special education, especially in SLD programs, and for minority students (despite inadequate evidence of effectiveness)
Unequivocal support for early intervention, but no systematic and valid identification/delivery system
Accountability: Need to improve outcomes for all students
Failure of “pre-referral intervention teams” (assumed need for intensive/individualized intervention; poor quality and integrity of interventions)

3. Benefits of Special Education Placement: Average Effect Sizes for Special Education Diagnosis Resulting in Special Class (vs. Regular Class) Placement Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (pp ). NY: Wiley
Special Education Mean No. of
Diagnostic Category Effect Size Effect Sizes
Mild Mental Retardation
(IQ: 50 – 75)
Slow Learner
(IQ: 75 – 90)
Specific Learning
Disability & Emotional
Disturbance

5. What the law has to say about RTI …
Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004
- LEA “may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures” (P.L. No , par 614[b][6][A]; par 614 [b][2 & 3])
… Up to 15% of Part B funds can be used for “early intervening services … (for those needing) additional academic and behavioral support”
… Schools are required to use “scientifically-based reading instruction”
… Schools are required to evaluate how well students respond to intervention
… Decisions must be “data based.”

6. Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi)
Monitor students’ reading and behavior performance
Make decisions based on data
Improve reading success
Improve behavioral success

7. What Is RTI? A system of assessment and intervention
Used primarily in regular education settings by regular education teachers
To track academic (or behavioral) performance of the group
To identify under-performing students
To provide intervention (at an appropriate level of intensity) to solve problems
To monitor effectiveness of interventions by evaluating student progress
NOT
A new set of procedures for determining
Special Education eligibility (SLD)

8. Response to Intervention
Tier Three:
Individualized
Intensive Intervention
(may include Special Education services)
Response to Intervention
Three-Tiered Model
~5%
Tier Two:
Standard Protocol, Standard Practice, or Problem-Solving Intervention
Target: At-risk students
~15%
Tier One:
Schoolwide
Classwide
Universal Instruction
Target: All students
~80% of Students

9. Response to Intervention
Universal Instruction and Screening
(“Benchmark Testing”)
Targeted Intervention and Progress Monitoring
Response to Intervention
Intensive, Individualized Intervention and Progress Monitoring
*Images reprinted from the IRIS Center (OSEP grant H325F01003) and the TN State Improvement Grant (OSEP grant H323A030007).

10. Two Principal Components of RTI
Evidence-based instruction and intervention for academic and social behavior problems
Systematic assessment, administered routinely
Benchmark testing/norming – entire class
Strategic monitoring (optional)
Progress monitoring – students receiving intervention

11. Systematic assessment, administered routinely:
Benchmark testing/norming (3x/yr: Tier 1)
Goal: 90% of class at or above benchmark
Strategic monitoring (1x/mo: Tier 1)
Goal: Adequate rate of progress (progress will eventually lead to
attainment of grade-level standard)
Progress monitoring (2x/mo – Tier 2); (1x/wk – Tier 2;
Tier 3)
Goal: Adequate rate of progress & adequate level of
performance (progress has been at an adequate rate, resulting in
attainment of grade-level standard or individual goal)

12. General Outcome/Skills-Based Measurement Graph
Shinn, 2003
Progress toward long-term goal is measured periodically; measures are always equivalent in terms of content and difficulty (e.g., Reading: # words read correctly per minute in grade-level passage; Math: # digits correct per minute in sample of computation problems drawn from across entire year’s curriculum)

13. Subskill Mastery Measurement Graph
Shinn, 2003
Progress toward short-term goal is measured; only the subskill in which instruction is currently occurring is assessed, so not useful for measuring progress toward long-term goals; best for use by teachers for instructional guidance.

14. RTI Assessment Tools
Curriculum-Based Measurement (Intervention Central probes and instructions) (
Passage Reading, Maze, Math Computation, Spelling, Writing
AIMSWeb (
Passage Reading, Maze, Early Literacy, Spelling, Early Numeracy
SWIS (School-Wide Information System) (
Behavior Measures (Office Disciplinary Referrals)
DIBELS (University of Oregon scoring/reporting) (
Initial Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, Word Use Fluency, Retell Fluency
DIBS
Dynamic (sensitive to small changes in performance)
Indicators (not diagnostic or comprehensive assessment – just good predictors of skill in overall domain)
Basic Skills (Reading, Math, Writing)

15. Assessment at Tier One Universal Screening
Is entire class performing (and making progress) at expected levels/rates?
Is class average (median score) at or above benchmark?
(or) Are 90% of scores at or above benchmark?
Is there an adequate upward trend in scores over time?
Is any student performing below expected level/peer average?
For “moderately” inadequate scorers (10th – 25th %ile), use strategic monitoring for 6 – 10 weeks
To evaluate progress, observe “slope of trend line” to ensure adequate rate of growth
For scorers below 10th %ile, proceed to Tier 2
To identify students at risk for failure (by comparing their scores to benchmarks, peers, etc.)

17. Assessment at Tier Two: Progress Monitoring
Measured 2x per month or 1x per week
Only students receiving Tier 2 interventions
Judgment re: effectiveness of intervention based on at least data points
Is student responsive to intervention?
Evaluated on basis of both level of performance (i.e., score, or “end level”, and its relationship to benchmarks and peer norms)
and
Rate of growth (slope of trend line)

18. 2 changes in program/intervention
Progress Monitoring
Graph at year-end, with
2 changes in program/intervention

19. Tier Three Progress Monitoring
Measured 1x per week or 2x per week
Judgment re: effectiveness of intervention based on at least data points
Is student responsive to intervention?
Evaluated on basis of both level of performance (i.e., score, or “end level”, and its relationship to benchmarks and peer norms)
and
Rate of growth (slope of trend line)

20. Dual Discrepancy Criterion
An alternative to the “IQ/Achievement Discrepancy Model” for SLD identification
1) Is student’s level of performance still
below expected levels, despite appropriate,
intensive, individualized intervention?
2) Is student’s rate of growth (weekly
improvement rate, or slope) slower than
expected, despite appropriate, intensive,
individualized intervention?

21. Eligibility for SLD Classification (Special Education)
Failure to achieve ...
Instruction/Intervention
Assessment Data
Tier One Assessment: Student’s scores compared to benchmarks and peer norms; Strategic monitoring scores showing inadequate rate of growth
Tier Two Assessment: Student’s progress monitoring scores showing dual discrepancy
Tier Three Assessment: Progress monitoring scores showing dual discrepancy or diminishing discrepancy with specialized instruction; Identify appropriate goal, using student’s instructional level (for dual discrepancy)
Despite appropriate, research-based instruction in regular education ...
supplemental, targeted intervention ...
and intensive, individualized intervention that required intensive and specialized resources ...