The overall architecture and major components of a measurement system designed and evaluated to support Response to Intervention (RTI) in the areas of language and literacy in early childhood programs are described. Efficient and reliable measurement is essential for implementing any viable RTI system, and implementing such a system in early childhood programs presents several special challenges. This article describes (a) the general approach taken to developing and evaluating this measurement system, including its conceptual and methodological foundations, methods, and results for developing items and scales for second-generation Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs 2.0), and (b) use of these scales in a larger decision-making framework for differentiating language and literacy instruction to match the needs of preschool children at risk of academic difficulties. The authors conclude with a review of some challenges associated with developing measurement for differentiated instruction in early childhood settings.
BradfieldT. A.BesnerA.Wackerle-HollmanA. K.AlbanoA.RodriguezM. C.McConnellS. R. (2014). Redefining individual growth and development indicators: Oral language. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39, 233-244. doi:10.1177/1534508413496837
2.
BradfieldT. A.VueK.RodriguezM. C.McConnellS. R. (2014, February). Confident decision-making: Validation of an early childhood response to intervention decision-making framework. Paper presented at the Conference for Research Innovation in Early Intervention, San Diego, CA:
3.
BuzhardtJ.GreenwoodC. R.WalkerD.AndersonR.HowardW. J.CartaJ. J. (2011). Effects of web-based support on Early Head Start home visitors’ use of evidence-based intervention decision making and growth in children’s expressive communication. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field, 13, 121-146.
4.
CartaJ. J.GreenwoodC. R.AtwaterJ.McConnellS. R.GoldsteinH.KaminksiR. A. (2015). Identifying preschool children for higher tiers of language and early literacy instruction within a response to intervention framework. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 281-291. doi:10.1177/1053815115579937
5.
CartaJ. J.GreenwoodC. R.GoldsteinH.McConnellS. R.KaminskiR.BradfieldT. A.. . . AtwaterJ. (in press). Advances in multi-tiered systems of support for prekindergarten children: Lessons learned from 5 years of research and development from the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
6.
ChardD. J.HarnB. A.SugaiG.HornerR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Core features of multi-tiered systems of reading and behavioral support. In GreenwoodC. R.KratchowillT.ClementsM. (Eds.), Elementary school-wide prevention models: Real models and lessons learned in real schools (pp. 31-60). New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
CizekG. J.BunchM. B. (Eds.). (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
CronbachL. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
9.
DowningS. M. (2002). Construct-irrelevant variance and flawed test questions: Do multiple-choice item writing principles make any difference?Academic Medicine, 77, S103-S104.
10.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
11.
FriedenT. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 590-595. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.185652
12.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488-500.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). The role of assessment in the three-tier approach to reading instruction. In HaagerD.KlingnerJ.VaughnS. (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 29-44). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2010). Using CBM to determine response to intervention. Washington, DC: National Center on Response to Intervention.
15.
GoodR. H.GrubaJ.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Best practices in using dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (Dibels) in an outcomes-driven model. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 699-720). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
16.
GreenwoodC. R.BradfieldT.KaminskiR.LinasM.CartaJ. J.NylanderD. (2011). The response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(9), 1-22.
17.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.GoldsteinH.KaminskiR. A.McConnellS. R.AtwaterJ. (2015). The Center on Response to Intervention in Early Childhood: Developing evidence-based tools for a multi-tier approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 246-262. doi:10.1177/1053815115581209
18.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.McConnellS. R. (2011). Advances in measurement for universal screening and individual progress monitoring of young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 254-267. doi:10.1177/1053815111428467
19.
GreenwoodC. R.WalkerD.BuzhardtJ. (2010). The Early Communication Indicator (ECI) for infants and toddlers: Early Head Start growth norms from two states. Journal of Early Intervention, 32, 310-334.
20.
HorstJ.SamuelsonL.KuckerS.McMurrayB. (2011). What’s new? Children prefer novelty in referent selection. Cognition, 118, 234-244.
21.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582-600.
22.
KaminskiR. A.Powell-SmithK. A.HommelA.McMahonR.AguayoK. B. (2015). Development of a Tier 3 curriculum to teach early literacy skills. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(1), 313-332. doi:10.1177/1053815115581210
23.
KaneM. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validation. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
24.
KaneM. T. (2013). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42, 448-457.
25.
KelleyE. S.GoldsteinH. (2015). Building a Tier 2 intervention: A glimpse behind the data. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(4), 292-312. doi:10.1177/1053815115581657
26.
KratochwillT. R.ClementsM. A.KalymonK. M. (2007). Response to intervention: Conceptual and methodological issues in implementation. In JimersonS.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 25-52). New York, NY: Springer.
27.
McConnellS. R.BradfieldT.Wackerle-HollmanA. (2014). Universal early literacy screening. In KettlerR.GloverT.AlbersC.Feeney-KettlerK. A. (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Identification, implications, and interpretation (pp. 141-170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
28.
McConnellS. R.GreenwoodC. R. (2013). General outcome measures in early childhood and the Individual Growth and Development Indicators. In BuysseV.Peisner-FeinbergE. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 143-154). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
29.
McConnellS. R.MissallK. N. (2008). Best practices in monitoring progress for preschool children. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 561-573). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
30.
McConnellS. R.PriestJ. S.DavisS. D.McEvoyM. A. (2002). Best practices in measuring growth and development for preschool children. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (4th ed., pp. 1231-1246). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
31.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 12-103). New York, NY: American Council on Education.
32.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel—A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. Jessup, MD: Author.
33.
NewtonP. E.ShawS. D. (2013). Standards for talking and thinking about validity. Psychological Methods, 18, 301-319. doi:10.1037/a0032969
34.
PriestJ. S.McConnellS. R.WalkerD.CartaJ. J.KaminskiR. A.McEvoyM. A.. . . ShinnM. R. (2001). General growth outcomes for young children: Developing a foundation for continuous progress measurement. Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 163-180.
35.
RodriguezM. C. (2010). Building a validity framework for second-generation IGDIs (Technical reports of the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
36.
RosethC. J.MissallK. N.McConnellS. R. (2012). Early Literacy Individual Growth and Development Indicators (EL-IGDIs): Growth trajectories using a large, internet-based sample. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 483-501.
37.
SemelE.WiigE. H.SecordW. A. (2004). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Preschool 2 (CELF P-2). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
38.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
SpeeceD. L.RitcheyK. D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral reading fluency in young children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 387-399.
40.
SpeeceD. L.RitcheyK. D.SilvermanR.SchatschneiderC.WalkerC. Y.AndrusikK. N. (2010). Identifying children in middle childhood who are at risk for reading problems. School Psychology Review, 39, 258-276.
41.
U.S. Public Health Service. (1994). For a healthy nation: Return on investments in public health. Hyattsville, MD: Author.
42.
Wackerle-HollmanA. K.RodriguezM. I.BradfieldT. A.RodriguezM. C.McConnellS. R. (2015). Development of early measures of comprehension: Innovation in Individual Growth and Development Indicators. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 81-95. doi:10.1177/1534508414551404
43.
Wackerle-HollmanA. K.SchmittB.BradfieldT. A.RodriguezM. C.McConnellS. R. (2013). Redefining Individual Growth and Development Indicators: Phonological awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022219413510181
44.
WalkerC. (2011). What’s the DIF? Why differential item functioning analyses are an important part of instrument development and validation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 364-376.
45.
WilsonM. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
