Data-based decision making by teams is central to implementation of response to intervention (RTI) models. Few studies have examined the actual decision-making process within RTI systems of service delivery. The purpose of this study was to examine the tier assignment decisions for students across grade-level teams in three K–5 elementary schools implementing identical RTI models for reading. Decisions of grade-level teams primarily composed of teachers were compared against the recommendation made by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) universal screening measure during fall and winter assessments across a 2-year period. Results showed teams had high overall levels of agreement with the DIBELS recommendations, especially after Grade 1 and during the winter of each year. When teams initially disagreed with the DIBELS recommendations, increased agreement in the use of data-based decisions was present over time. Implications for the data decision-making process within an RTI model are discussed.
BarnettD. W.HawkinsR.PrasseD.GradenJ.NantasisM.PanW. (2007). Decision-making validity in response to intervention. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 106–117). New York, NY: John Wiley.
2.
BatscheG.ElliotJ.GradenJ. L.GrimesJ.KovaleskiJ. F.PrasseD. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
3.
BegenyJ. C.EckertT. L.MontarelloS. A.StorieM. S. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ reading abilities: An examination of the relationship between teachers’ judgments and students’ performance across a continuum of rating methods. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 43–55.
4.
BurkeM. D.Hagan-BurkeS. (2007). Concurrent criterion-related validity of early literacy indicators for middle of first grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 66–77.
5.
BurnsM. K.ScholinS. E.KosciolekS.LivingstonJ. (2010). Reliability of decision-making frameworks for response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 102–114. doi:10.1177/0734282909342374
6.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.
7.
Data Recognition Corporation. (2009, February). Technical report for the PSSA 2008 reading and mathematics: Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Maple Grove, MN: Author.
8.
ElliottJ.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills–Modified. School Psychology Review, 30, 33–49.
9.
EspinC. A.DenoS. L.MaruyamaG.CohenC. (1989, April). The Basic Academic Skills Samples: An instrument for screening and identifying children at risk for failure in the regular education classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting, San Francisco, CA.
10.
FeinbergA. B.ShapiroE. S. (2009). Teacher accuracy: An examination of teacher-based judgments of students’ reading with differing achievement levels. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 453–462.
11.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 31, 30–37.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
13.
GoffredaC. T.DiPernaJ. C. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. School Psychology Review, 39, 463–483.
14.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002a). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http://dibels.uoregon.edu
15.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. (2002b). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency passages for first through third grades (Technical Report No. 10). Eugene: University of Oregon.
16.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.SmithS.BrattenJ. (2001). Technical adequacy of second grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency passages (Tech. rep.). Eugene: University of Oregon.
17.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. S.Kame’enuiE. J.KaminskiR. A.WallinJ. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Tech. Rep. 11). Eugene: University of Oregon.
18.
Hilt-PanahonA.ShapiroE. S.ClemensN. H.GischlarK. (2011). Project MP3: Monitoring progress of Pennsylvania pupils—The structure and content of the RTI model. In ShapiroE. S.ZigmondN.WallaceT.MarstonD. (Eds.), Models of response to intervention implementation: Tools, outcomes, and implications. New York, NY: Guilford.
19.
HintzeJ. M.RyanA. L.StonerG. (2003). Concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. School Psychology Review, 32, 541–556.
20.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–600.
21.
JenkinsJ. R.JewellM. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.
22.
JenkinsJ. R.O’ConnorR. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 99–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185.
24.
JordanN. C.KaplanD.OláhL. N.LocuniakM. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153–175.
25.
KratochwillT. R.ClementsM.KalymonK. M. (2007). Response to intervention: Conceptual and methodological issues. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 25–52). New York, NY: John Wiley.
26.
McGlincheyM. T.HixsonM. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33, 193–203.
27.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186–195.
28.
RoehrigA. D.PetscherY.NettlesS. M.HudsonR. F.TorgesenJ. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.
29.
SamuelsS. J. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print what we mean by reading fluency?Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 563–566.
30.
ShapiroE. S.KellerM. A.LutzJ. G.EdwardsL.HintzeJ. M. (2006). Curriculum-based measures and performance on state assessment and standardized tests: Reading and math performance in Pennsylvania. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 19–35.
31.
ShapiroE. S.SolariE.PetscherY. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316–328.
32.
ShinJ.DenoS. L.EspinC. (2000). Technical adequacy of the Maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164−173.
33.
Success for All Foundation. (2007). 4Sight Benchmark Assessments. Baltimore, MD: Author.
34.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
35.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18, 137–148.
36.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–120.
37.
WiliamD. (2009). Assessment for learning: Why, what, how?London, UK: University of London, Institute of Education.
