Problem Analysis at Tier 2: Using Data to Find the Category of the Problem

  • Matthew K. BurnsEmail author
  • Kathrin E. Maki
  • Abbey C. Karich
  • Matthew Hall
  • Jennifer J. McComas
  • Lori Helman


The current chapter discusses research regarding methods to focus reading and mathematics interventions at tier 2. A problem analysis model for reading that involves targeting the most fundamental skill is presented in which the student struggles by focusing on the broad categories of comprehension, fluency, decoding, and phonemic awareness. Data from the Path to Reading Excellence in School Sites Project are then presented in which he problem analysis framework was used to target interventions for 175 second- and third-grade students. The data suggested that targeting the intervention based on problem analysis of the four broad areas led to more growth than a comprehensive intervention that was implemented by the school, and more growth than students who were above fall benchmark standards (tier 1). However, these positive results were also dependent on effective grade-level teams to conduct the problem analysis, an easy-to-use data warehouse system, a data manager to facilitate the problem analysis, implementation integrity of the interventions, and quality core instruction.


Reading Skill Phonemic Awareness Reading Intervention Manipulation Intervention Core Instruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allington, R. (2011). What at-risk readers need. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 40–45.Google Scholar
  3. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, C. M. (2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 334–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Burns, M. K., & Parker, D. C. (in press). Using the instructional level as a criterion to determine student phase of learning for reading fluency: Evidence for the learning hierarchy. Reading and Writing Quarterly.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., Tucker, J. A., Frame, J., Foley, S., & Hauser, A. (2000). Interscorer, alternate–form, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability of Gicklingʼs model of Curriculum–based Assessment for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005a). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness- to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M., & Ruby, S. (2005b). Evaluating the readiness of prereferral intervention teams for use in a problem-solving model: Review of three levels of research. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.Google Scholar
  11. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Boice, C. H. (2008). Best practices in intensive academic interventions. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1151–1162). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  12. Burns, M. K., Klingbeil, D. A., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2010). The effects of technology-enhancedformative evaluation on student performance on state accountability math tests. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 582–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to- intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Communiqué, 34(3), 1–2.Google Scholar
  14. Christ, T. J., Ardoin, S. A., & Eckert, T. (2011). Formative Assessment and Instrumentation for Reading (FAIP-R): Curriculum based measurement for reading. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  15. Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child x instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80, 77–100.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehaene, S., & Akhavein, R. (1995). Attention, automaticity, and levels of representation in number processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 314–326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston: Council for Exception Children.Google Scholar
  18. DuFour, R. (2005). What is a professional learning community. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 31–44). Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  19. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). Recurring themes of professional learning communities and the assumptions they challenge. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.) On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 7–30). Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  20. Elkonin, D. (1971). Development of speech. In A. V. Zaporozhets & D. B. Elkonin (Eds.), The psychology of preschool children. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2011). Leveled literacy intervention. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  23. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009–4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  26. Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, M., & Burns, M. K. (2014). A meta-analysis of small-group reading interventions. Paper submitted for publication. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  28. Hanich, L.B., Jordan, N.C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hord, S. (1997).) Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Google Scholar
  30. Hosp, J. L., & Ardoin, S. P. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Houchins, D. E., Shippen, M. E., & Flores, M. M. (2004). Math assessment and instruction for students at-risk. In R. Colarusso & C. O’Rourke (Eds.), Special education for all teachers (3rd ed.). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Ikeda, M. J., & Gustafson, J. K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11’s problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education. Research report no. 2002-01. Johnston: Heartland Area Education Agency 11.Google Scholar
  33. Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kamps, D., & Greenwood, C. R. (2005). Formulating secondary-level reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 500–509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73.Google Scholar
  37. Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., Vankeuren, B., & Marston, D. (2006). Perspectives on the use of the problem-solving model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher from a large midwest urban school district. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Logan, G. D., Taylor, S. E., & Etherton, J. L. (1996). Attention in the acquisition and expression of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 620–638.Google Scholar
  39. Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 539–544.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.Google Scholar
  41. McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. (2003). Intervention-based assessment: Evaluation rates and eligibility findings. Exceptional Children, 69, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  43. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  44. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the national math advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  45. Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Measures of academic progress. Lake Oswego: Author.Google Scholar
  46. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearson. (2008). Aimsweb: Progress monitoring and RtI system. Bloomington: author.Google Scholar
  48. Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 8–38.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. PRESS Research Team. (2013a). PRESS assessment manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Center for Reading Research.Google Scholar
  50. PRESS Research Team. (2013b). PRESS intervention manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Center for Reading Research.Google Scholar
  51. Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader. New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  52. Reschly, D. J. (2008). School psychology paradigm shift and beyond. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V, 1, (pp. 3–15), Bethesda: National.Google Scholar
  53. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376–381.Google Scholar
  54. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., et al. (2007). Intervention for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implication for practice. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
  55. Singer-Dudek, J., & Greer, R. D. (2005). Long-term analysis of the relationship between fluency and the training and maintenance of complex math skills. The Psychological Record, 55, 361–376.Google Scholar
  56. Spicuzza, R., Ysseldyke, J. E., Lemkuil, A., McGill, S., Boys, C., & Teelucksingh, E. (2001). Effects of curriculum-based monitoring on classroom instruction and math achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 521–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tilly, W. D. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem solving and the three-tiered model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 17–36). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  58. Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: Effects on student time on task and comprehension. School Psychology Review, 36, 159–166.Google Scholar
  59. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2010). Essentials of response to intervention. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., & Romain, M. A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338–345.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. D., Barth, A., Romain, M., & Francis, D. J. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Weissberg, R., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). Community and school prevention. In I. Siegel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 877–954). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  64. Ysseldyke, J. E., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., Teelucksingh, E., Boys, C., & Lemkuil, A. (2003). Using a curriculum-based instructional management system to enhance math achievement in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(2), 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew K. Burns
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kathrin E. Maki
    • 2
  • Abbey C. Karich
    • 2
  • Matthew Hall
    • 2
  • Jennifer J. McComas
    • 2
  • Lori Helman
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations