Advertisement

Response to Intervention and Accountability Systems

  • Timothy J. RungeEmail author
  • David J. Lillenstein
  • Joseph F. Kovaleski
Chapter

Abstract

Response to intervention (RTI) for academics or behavior requires that data from multiple sources are collected and monitored to evaluate efficacy of interventions for individuals, groups of students, and whole school populations. An explosion of data sources for RTI and positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in recent years has allowed school teams to base educational decisions on multiple sets of reliable and valid data; however, with large quantities of available data comes the challenge of securely storing these data and retrieving them in an efficient manner. This process of data warehousing has led to the emergence of a number of commercial products aimed at storing data key to RTI and PBIS and providing teams with a range of reports and graphs to facilitate making informed, data-based decisions about instruction and interventions. A review of the data analysis teaming process along with common types of data used in the RTI/PBIS process is provided. Sample data warehousing products are offered with a review of their strengths and limitations.

Keywords

Reading Comprehension Oral Reading Fluency School Team Rapid Serial Naming Functional Behavioral Assessment 
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.

References

  1. Algozzine, B., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Barrett, S., Dickey, S. R., Eber, L., & Tobin, T. (2010). Evaluation blueprint for school-wide positive behavior support. Eugene: National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support. www.pbis.org. Accessed 27 Feb 2015.
  2. Anderson, N. A., Childs, K., Kincaid, D., Horner, R. H., George, H., Todd, A., & Spaulding, S. A. (2012). Benchmarks of advanced tiers v. 2.5. Unpublished instrument, Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon, and University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, D., Daly, E., Jones, K., & Lentz, F. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically-based special service decisions for increasing and decreasing intensity using single case designs. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boneshefski, M. J., & Runge, T. J. (2014). Addressing disproportionate discipline practices within a schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports framework: A practical guide for calculating disproportionality rates. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 149–158. doi:10.1177/1098300713484064.Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–149. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394. doi:10.1177/073428290502300406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Long, J. D., & Monaghen, B. D. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Exceptional Children, 78, 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christ, T. J., Zopluoglo, C., Monaghen, B. D., & Van Norman, E. R. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51(1), 19–57. (in press).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  12. Duhon, G. J., Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Freeland, J. T., Dufrene, B. A., & Gilbertson, D. N. (2004). Identifying academic skill and performance deficits: The experimental analysis of brief assessments of academic skills. School Psychology Review, 33, 429–443.Google Scholar
  13. Eber, L., Phillips, D., Hyde, K., Breen, K., Rose, J., Lewandowski, H., & Upreti, G. (2010). Illinois positive behavior interventions & supports (PBIS) network: FY10 annual progress report. Springfield: Illinois PBIS Network. www.istac.net. Accessed 27 Feb 2015.
  14. Educational and Community Supports. (2011). School-wide information system [On-line data-base]. Eugene: Author.Google Scholar
  15. Elliott, S. N., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). Social skills improvement system—Performance screening guide. San Antonio: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, L., Hemmeter, M. L., & Jack, S. (2010). Early childhood program-wide PBIS benchmarks of quality. Unpublished instrument, University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  17. Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172–186. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.Google Scholar
  19. Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. (2013). Cloze tests may be quick, but are they dirty? Development and preliminary validation of a cloze test of reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 16–28. doi:10.1177/0734282912451971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Cummings, K., Dufour-Martel, C., Petersen, K., Powell-Smith, K., & Wallin, J. (2011). DIBELS Next. Eugene: Dynamic Measurement Group.Google Scholar
  21. Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2003). Referral rates for intervention and assessment: A meta-analysis of racial differences. Journal of Special Education, 37, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howe, K. B., Scierka, B. J., Gibbons, K. A., & Silberglitt, B. (2003). A school-wide organization system for raising reading achievement using general outcome measures and evidenced-based instruction: One education district’s experience. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 59–72. doi:10.1177/073724770302800307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  24. Illinois PBIS Network. (2012). FY12: End of year report. Springfield: Author. http://www.istac.net. Accessed 27 Feb 2015.
  25. Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2007). Behavior assessment system for children—Second edition (BASC-2): Behavioral and emotional screening system. Bloomington: Pearson.Google Scholar
  26. Kelley, B. (2008). Curriculum-based evaluation in math. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Ed.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 419–438). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  27. Kincaid, D., Childs, K., & George, H. (2005). School-wide benchmarks of quality. Unpublished instrument, University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  28. Kovaleski, J. F., & Pedersen, J. (2008). Best practices in data analysis teaming. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology, V (Vol. 2, pp. 115–129). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  29. Kovaleski, J. F., & Pedersen, J. A. (2014). Best practices in data-analysis teaming. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and collaborative descision making, (pp. 99–120). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  30. Kovaleski, J. F., VanDerHeyDen, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2013). The rti approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187–200. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria: Author.Google Scholar
  33. National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Bethesda: Author.Google Scholar
  34. NCS Pearson, Inc. (2011). AIMSweb. Austin: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Northwest Evaluation Association. (2004). Measures of academic progress. Lake Oswego: Author.Google Scholar
  36. Renaissance Learning. (1996). STAR Reading. Wisconsin Rapids: Author.Google Scholar
  37. Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  38. Runge, T. J., Staszkiewicz, M. J., & O’Donnell, K. H. (2012). 2010–2011 PAPBS network SWPBIS executive summary. Indiana: Indiana University of Pennsylvania. http://www.papbs.org. Accessed 27 Feb 2015.
  39. Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 32, 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40, 85–107.Google Scholar
  42. Spaulding, S. A., Irvin, L. K., Horner, R. H., May, S. L., Emeldi, M., Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. (2010). Schoolwide social-behavioral climate, student problem behavior, and related administrative decisions: Empirical patterns from 1,510 schools nationwide. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 12, 69–85. doi:10.1177/1098300708329011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sprague, J., Colvin, G., & Irvin, L. (2002). The school safety survey version 2.0. Unpublished instrument, The Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior.Google Scholar
  44. Steege, M. W., & Watson, T. S. (2009). Conducting school-based functional behavioral assessments (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. Stewart, L H., & Silberglitt, B. (2008). Best practices in developing academic local norms. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 225–242). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  46. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Sugai, G. Dunlap, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307–326). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. W., & Horner, R. H. (2005). School-wide evaluation tool version 2.1. Eugene: Educational and Community Supports.Google Scholar
  48. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2009a). Effective behavior support: Team implementation checklist version 3.0. Eugene: Educational and Community Supports.Google Scholar
  49. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. (2009b). Effective behavior support: Self-assessment survey version 3.0. Eugene: Educational and Community Supports.Google Scholar
  50. Tilly, W. D., III. (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 (Vol. 1, pp. 17–36). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  51. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Newton, J. S., Algozzine, R. F., Algozzine, K. M., & Frank, J. L. (2011). Effects of team-initiated problem solving on decision making by schoolwide behavior support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 42–59. doi:10.1080/15377903.2011.540510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7–26. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00092-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Naquin, G. (2003). The development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204–227.Google Scholar
  54. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential pitfalls. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy J. Runge
    • 1
    Email author
  • David J. Lillenstein
    • 2
  • Joseph F. Kovaleski
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA
  2. 2.Derry Township (PA) School DistrictHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations