We used data from the 2014–2015 easyCBM assessment system to explore the applied reading intervention characteristics in a sample of 3,074 Grade 1 students (and 5,145 interventions) in school districts applying a multitiered systems of support (MTSS) framework. We describe the number of interventions, number of assessments, the intervention start dates, curricula, instructional strategies, tier, group size, frequency, dosage, total time, and quantitative intensity. We found variance across all instructional variables, with 156 curricula and 59 instructional strategies applied. Based on our data, a “typical” intervention was a Tier 2 intervention that began before October, was delivered for 30 minutes/day for 5 days/week in a group with three to five students, was changed once if at all, and student progress was most likely monitored with word reading fluency measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlonzoJ., & TindalG. (2007a). Examining the technical adequacy of early literacy measures in a progress monitoring assessment system: Letter names, letter sounds, and phoneme segmenting (Technical Report No. 39). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
2.
AlonzoJ., & TindalG. (2007b). The development of word and passage reading fluency measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 40). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
3.
AlonzoJ., & TindalG. (2009). Alternate form and test–retest reliability of easyCBM reading measures (Technical Report No. 0906). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Al OtaibaS., & FuchsD. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050401
6.
BlaseK. A., FixsenD. L., & DudaM. (2011, February). Implementation science: Building the bridge between science and practice. Presentation given at the Institute of Education Sciences, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/funding/videos/ppt/Blase.ppt
7.
BurnsM. K., AppletonJ. J., & StehouwerJ. D. (2005). Meta–analytic review of responsiveness–to–intervention research: Examining field–based and research–implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300406
8.
BurnsM. K., ScholinS. E., KosciolekS., & LivingstonJ. (2010). Reliability of decision–making frameworks for response to intervention for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909342374
9.
BuschT. W., & ReschlyA. L. (2007). Progress monitoring in reading: Using curriculum–based measurement in a response–to–intervention model. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 223–230.
ChristT. J., ZopluogluC., MonaghenB. D., & Van NormanE. 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, 19–57.
12.
ComptonD. L., GilbertJ. K., JenkinsJ. R., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., ChoE., et al. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442151
13.
DalyE. J., MartensB. K., BarnettD., WittJ. C., & OlsonS. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.
14.
DalyE. J.III, & MurdochA. (2000). Direct observation in the assessment of academic skills problems. In ShapiroE. S. & KratochwillT. R. (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in schools: Theory, research, and clinical foundations (2nd ed., pp. 46–77). New York: Guilford.
15.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum–based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 18, 19–32.
16.
DenoS., FuchsL., MarstonD., & ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum–based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.
17.
DenoS., MarstonD., & TindalG. (1985). Direct and frequent curriculum–based measurement: An alternative for educational decision making. Special Services in the Schools, 2, 5–27.
18.
DentonC. A., CirinoP. T., BarthA. E., RomainM., VaughnS., WexlerJ., et al. (2011). An experimental study of scheduling and duration of “Tier 2” first–grade reading intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.530127
19.
EngelmannS., & CarnineD. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington Pub.
20.
FoormanB. R., SchatschneiderC., EakinM. N., FletcherJ. M., MoatsL. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.003.
21.
FoormanB. R., & TorgesenJ. K. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small–group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 202–211.
22.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & ComptonD. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next–generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.
23.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & VaughnS. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522966
24.
FuchsL. S. & VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness–to–Intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442150
25.
GerstenR., ComptonD., ConnorC. M., DiminoJ., SantoroL., Linan–ThompsonS., et al. (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, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
26.
GloverT. A., & DiPernaJ. C. (2007). Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review, 36, 526–540.
27.
JenkinsJ. R., SchillerE., BlackorbyJ., ThayerS. K., & TillyW. D. (2013). Responsiveness to intervention in reading: Architecture and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 36–46.
28.
JenkinsJ., & TerjesonK. J. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 28–35.
29.
LaiC. F., AlonzoJ., & TindalG. (2013). easyCBM reading criterion related validity evidence: Grades k–1 (technical report 1309). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
30.
LaiC. F., NeseJ. F. T., JamgochianE. M., AlonzoJ., & TindalG. (2010). Technical adequacy of the easyCBM primary–level reading measures (grades k–1), 2009–2010 version (technical report 1003). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
31.
MellardD., McKnightM., & JordanJ. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 217–225.
32.
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: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00–4754). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
PrestonA. I., WoodC. L., & SteckerP. M. (2016). Response to intervention: Where it came from and where it's going. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1065399
34.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
35.
SanettiL. M. H., & KratochwillT. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38, 445–459.
36.
ShapiroE. S. (2013). Commentary on progress monitoring with CBM–R and decision making: Problems found and looking for solutions. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.11.003
37.
ShinnM. R. (1995). Best practices in curriculum–based measurement and its use in the problem–solving model. In ThomasA. & GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III (pp. 547–567). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
38.
SnowC. E., BurnsM. S., & GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
39.
SwansonH. L., & Sachse–LeeC. (2000). A meta–analysis of single–subject design intervention research for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 114–136.
40.
SwansonE. A., & VaughnS. (2010). An observation study of reading instruction provided to elementary students with learning disabilities in the resource room. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20484
41.
TindalG. (2013). Curriculum–based measurement: A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to the present. ISRN Education, 2013, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/958530
42.
TorgesenJ. (2005). Building a community of reading experts: A principal's guide to intensive reading interventions for struggling readers in Reading First schools. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/principal.pdf
43.
VaughnS., LevyS., ColemanM., & BosC. S. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. Journal of Special Education, 36, 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360010101.
44.
VaughnS., & WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12031
45.
WanzekJ., & CavanaughC. (2012). Characteristics of general education reading interventions implemented in elementary schools for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510383162
46.
WarrenS. F., FeyM. E., & YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20139
47.
WickhamH. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer–Verlag.
48.
ZigmondN., & BakerJ. (1994). Is the mainstream a more appropriate educational setting for Randy? A case study of one student with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 108–117.
