RTI Implementer Webinar Series: Using Screening Data for Decision Making National Center on Response to Intervention National Center on Response to Intervention RTI Implementer Series Overview Introduction Screening Progress Monitoring Multi-level Prevention System Defining the Essential Components What Is RTI? What Is Screening? What Is Progress Monitoring? What Is a Multilevel Prevention System? Assessment and Data-based Decision Making Understanding Types of Assessment within an RTI Framework Using Screening Data for Decision Making Using Progress Monitoring Data for Decision Making IDEA and Multilevel Prevention System Establishing Processes Implementing RTI Establishing a Screening Process National Center on Response to Intervention Selecting Evidence-based Practices 2 Upon Completion Participants Will Be Able To: Understand different types of decisions that can be made with screening data Learn how the placement of a cut score can influence who is identified as at risk Analyze different types of screening data National Center on Response to Intervention 3 Vocabulary Handout Term Prediction Final Meaning Primary prevention level The bottom of the pyramid that represents instruction given to students without learning problems Instruction delivered to all students using research-based curricula and differentiation in the general education classroom. Incorporates universal screening, continuous progress monitoring, and outcome measures or summative assessments. National Center on Response to Intervention Picture/Sketch/Example Primary prevention 4 District Educational Decisions: Screening Program improvement and curriculum decisions Innovation and sustainability decisions • General effectiveness of implementation and general effectiveness of RTI model Ensuring equitable services and supports across schools • Access to supplemental supports, access to effective instruction, and SLD identification Allocation of resources and professional development National Center on Response to Intervention 5 School Educational Decisions: Screening General school-and grade-level trends or issues Effectiveness of school-wide curriculum and instructional delivery Areas of need and guidance on how to set measurable school-wide goals National Center on Response to Intervention 6 Grade-Level Educational Decisions: Screening Grade-level trends or issues Effectiveness of grade-level curriculum and instruction Areas of need and guidance on how to set measurable grade-level goals Students who may need additional instruction or assessment National Center on Response to Intervention 7 Cut Score A cut score is a score on a screening test that divides students who are considered potentially at risk from those who are considered not at risk. National Center on Response to Intervention 8 Identifying Students as At Risk RTI success depends on accurate identification of the students identified as at risk. Perfect screening would result in 100% accurate identification of “True Positives” (those who need additional support) and “True Negatives” (those who do not need additional support). Cut scores for screening tools are often set to overidentify students as at risk. National Center on Response to Intervention 9 Number of students Categorical Vs. Continuous 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Arbitrary cut score True Negatives & False Negatives True Positives & False Positives 0 Sickle Cell Anemia No Sickle Cell Anemia Scores on a measure of reading/math National Center on Response to Intervention 10 Clinical Decision-Making Model At risk Not at risk Screen Outcome At risk Not at risk True Positive False Positive False Negative National Center on Response to Intervention True Negative True Positive – students correctly identified at risk False Positive – students incorrectly identified at risk False Negative – students incorrectly identified not at risk True Negative – students correctly identified not at risk 11 Comparison Based on Changing the Cut Score Overlapping distributions N=100 students Overlapping distributions N=100 students TP 40 FP 10 TP 33 FP 2 FN 10 TN 40 FN 17 TN 48 Poor Readers 80% 80% Good Readers Poor Readers 65% 20% 20% Number of items correct on screening instrument National Center on Response to Intervention 5% 95% Good Readers 35% Number of items correct on screening instrument 12 Setting Realistic Cut Scores Poor Readers Good Readers Number of items correct on screening instrument National Center on Response to Intervention 13 Over Vs. Under Identification Public Health Education Overidentification • • Expense of additional testing • Expense of additional testing • Expense of early intervention services Unnecessary worry Underidentification • Overidentification Miss serious health problem National Center on Response to Intervention Underidentification • Miss opportunity for prevention/early intervention 14 Screening: Establishing Cut Scores Logical practices to establish cut scores indicating skill proficiency • National cut scores (e.g., AIMSweb, DIBELS) • Local norms • Cut scores based on likelihood of demonstrating mastery on core testing Typically based on statistical analysis National Center on Response to Intervention 15 Benefits of District-Established Over School-Established Cut Scores More effective and efficient allocation of resources Increased buy-in and use of data by schools/teachers Common message and focused activities Increased equity in access to supplemental supports National Center on Response to Intervention 16 Problems with Schools Independently Establishing Cut Scores School School 1 School 2 School 3 National Center on Response to Intervention Percent At or Above School Cut Score 50% 63% 48% 17 Problems with Schools Independently Establishing Cut Scores 63% 50% National Center on Response to Intervention 48% 18 Importance of District Cut Scores 20% 4% 44% National Center on Response to Intervention 19 Establishing Routines and Procedures for Data-Based Decision Making Data teams should establish: Routines and procedures for conducting data reviews Decision-making processes Explicit decision rules for assessing student progress National Center on Response to Intervention 20 Conducting Data Reviews Conduct data reviews at logical, predetermined intervals Schedule data reviews prior to the beginning of instruction Use established meeting structures Involve relevant team members National Center on Response to Intervention 21 Data-Based Decision-Making Routines and Procedures Articulate routines and procedures in writing Implement established routines and procedures with integrity Ensure routines and procedures are culturally and linguistically responsive National Center on Response to Intervention 22 Establishing Routines and Procedures Consider clarifying the following in writing: What are you looking for? How will you look for it? How will you know if you found it? National Center on Response to Intervention 23 Examples of Explicit Decision Rules Consider articulating, in writing, what happens when: More than 80% of students are above the cut score Less than 80% have reached the cut score Lack of progress is evident Student progress varies by target group (e.g., Title I, special education, low SES) National Center on Response to Intervention 24 Data Analysis National Center on Response to Intervention 25 Data Analysis Data analysis should occur at the: • District Level • School Level • Grade/Class Level • Student Level National Center on Response to Intervention 26 Purpose of Data Analysis Identify students who need additional assessment and instruction Evaluate effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction Allocate resources Evaluate effectiveness of instruction programs for target groups (e.g., ELL, Title I) National Center on Response to Intervention 27 Commonly Confused Terms Cut Score – score on a screening test that divides students who are considered potentially at risk from those who are considered not at risk. Target or Benchmark – predetermined level of performance on a screening test that is considered representative of proficiency or mastery of a certain set of skills. Criterion Scores – scores on a screening test that separate students into performance levels (e.g., established, emerging, deficient) National Center on Response to Intervention 28 Interpreting Screening Data Norm Referenced Criterion Referenced Target Score National Center on Response to Intervention 29 Norm Referenced Students are measured against others, NOT a defined criterion. Permits a fixed proportion of students to pass and fail. • This means that standards may vary from year to year, depending on the quality of the cohort; Effective way of comparing students. National Center on Response to Intervention 30 Norm Referenced: Bell Curve Above Average Range Above 90th percentile 90th percentile Average Range (middle 50%) 75th percentile Median (50th percentile) 25th percentile Below Average Range 10th percentile National Center on Response to Intervention 31 Norm Referenced: Box and Whisker Plots 90 th %tile 75th %tile 50th %tile 25th %tile National Center on Response to Intervention 10th %tile 32 Norm Referenced: Box and Whisker Plots Benchmark Scores for Grade 2 Screening Measure 70 Score 60 Above Average 50 40 Average 30 Below Average 20 Student 10 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 33 Norm Referenced: Box and Whisker Plots 90th%ile 75th%ile Words Read Correctly 200 50th%ile 175 25th%ile 150 10th %ile 100 Cut score 75 School A 50 Composite 25 Grade 1 National Center on Response to Intervention Grade 2 Grade 3 34 Words Read Correctly Norm Referenced: Box and Whisker Plots Handout 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90th%ile 75th%ile 50th%ile 25th%ile 10th %ile Cut score School A Composite Grade 2 National Center on Response to Intervention 35 Criterion Referenced Students are measured against defined (and objective) criteria. Criterion-referenced assessment is often, but not always, used to establish a person’s competence (whether s/he can do something). Criteria typically do not vary from year to year (unless the criteria change). National Center on Response to Intervention 36 Criterion Referenced There are multiple ways to determine the criterion. One example is percentile ranks: • Below 10 percentile = deficient • 10 percentile – 25 percentile = emerging • Above 25 percentile established National Center on Response to Intervention = 37 National Center on Response to Intervention 38 Norm Referenced Vs. Criterion Referenced ID Name Corrects Errors Accuracy Performance Summary Cut score=77 Potential Instructional Action 1256 Jim 73 Well Above Average Continue Primary Prevention 2343 Jenny 70 Well Above Average Continue Primary Prevention 16705 Jackie 69 Well Above Average Well Above Average =68 (90th percentile) Continue Primary Prevention ID Name Corrects Errors Accuracy Performance Summary Emerging> 75 1256 Jim 73 Emerging 2343 Jenny 70 Emerging 16705 Jackie 69 Emerging 2341 Jill 67 Above Average Continue Primary Prevention 2341 Jill 67 Emerging 23602 Jerry 67 Above Average Continue Primary Prevention 23602 Jerry 67 Emerging 14507 Jack 67 Above Average Continue Primary Prevention 14507 Jack 67 Emerging 6235 Jerome 67 Above Average Continue Primary Prevention 6235 Jerome 67 Emerging 1267 Joann 67 1267 Joann 67 Emerging 20002 Jared 60 Emerging Jason 60 Emerging Above Average Above Average =66 (75th Percentile) Continue Primary Prevention 20002 Jared 60 Average Continue Primary Prevention 12 2345 Jessica 58 Average Continue Primary Prevention 12325 Jeff 60 Emerging 1384 Jen 58 Average Continue Primary Prevention 2345 Jessica 58 Emerging 4312 Jim 56 Average Continue Primary Prevention 1384 Jen 58 Emerging 4312 Jim 56 Emerging 8752 Jeremy 50 Average Continue Primary Prevention 8752 Jeremy 50 Emerging 14562 Jackson 47 14562 9873 5631 Jackson Jessie Jillian 47 41 41 Average Average = 43 (25th percentile) Below Average Below Average 2344 Juanita 40 Below Average 12074 Jaclyn 38 Below Average 13551 Janet 1834 Jade 23515 James 22145 Jed 37 35 Below Average Below Average = 36 (10th percentile) Well Below Average Assess and Consider Tertiary Prevention Well Below Average Assess and Consider Tertiary Prevention Assess and Consider Tertiary Prevention National Center on Response 18 to Intervention Well Below Average 9 Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Potential Instructional Action Cut score=77 Deficient > 46 9873 Jessie 41 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 5631 Jillian 41 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 2344 Juanita 40 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 12074 Jaclyn 38 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 13551 Janet 37 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 1834 Jade 35 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 23515 James 18 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 22145 Jed 9 39 Target Score Typically based on statistical analysis Can be correlated with high-stakes testing • Example: students who reach the target score have an 80% likelihood of scoring proficient on the state test National Center on Response to Intervention 40 Target Performance Summary Established Established Potential Instructional Action Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention 105 Established Continue Primary Prevention Jill Jerry 103 101 Established Established Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention 14507 Jack 101 Established Continue Primary Prevention 06235 Jerome 90 Established Continue Primary Prevention 01267 20002 Joann Jared 88 86 Established Established Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention ID 01256 02343 Name Jim Jenny Corrects 107 107 16705 Jackie 02341 23602 Errors Accuracy ------------Cut score = 82----------Established 00012 Jason 80 Continue Primary Prevention 12325 Jeff 77 Established Continue Primary Prevention 02345 Jessica 77 Established Continue Primary Prevention 01384 Jen 74 Established Continue Primary Prevention 04312 08752 Jim Jeremy 72 71 Established Established Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Emerging > 70 14562 Jackson 69 Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention 09873 Jessie 69 Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention 05631 Jillian 60 Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention 02344 Juanita 57 Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention 12074 Jaclyn 55 Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention 13551 Janet 53 01834 Jade National Center on23515 James Response to Intervention 22145 Jed 43 39 31 Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Deficient > 46 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 41 DISTRICT DATA ANALYSIS National Center on Response to Intervention 42 District Level: Box and Whisker Plots Handout 90th%ile 75th%ile 200 50th%ile 175 25th%ile 150 10th %ile 100 Target School A 75 School B 50 School C School D 25 School E Grade 1 National Center on Response to Intervention Grade 2 Grade 3 Composite 43 Comparison of Benchmark Scores for Grade 2 Across The Year Percent 100 90 80 18 70 60 50 40 27 30 13 17 16 80 70 5555 20 10 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 44 Analyzing Growth of Subgroups Across the District Words Read Correctly 140 Other Target Score 120 Title I Status 100 Special Education 80 60 40 20 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 45 Analyzing Growth of Ethnic Groups Across the District Words Read Correctly Caucasian 140 Unidentified 120 Target Scores Hispanic/Latino 100 African American 80 Asian 60 40 20 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 46 Words Read Correctly Analyzing Growth of English Language Learners Across the District 140 Non-ELLs 120 Target Scores 100 ELLs 80 60 40 20 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 47 SCHOOL-LEVEL DATA ANALYSIS National Center on Response to Intervention 48 Norm Referenced: Box and Whisker Plots 90th%ile 75th%ile 200 50th%ile Score 175 25th%ile 150 10th %ile Target Score 100 75 School A 50 Composite 25 Grade 1 Grade 2 National Center on Response to Intervention Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 49 Performance of Average Student Benchmark Scores for Grade 1-5 Screening Measure Fall 70 Winter 60 Spring Score 50 40 30 20 10 Grade 1 Grade 2 National Center on Response to Intervention Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 50 Analyzing Growth of Ethnic Groups at the School Level Handout Caucasian Words Read Correctly 140 Unidentified Target Scores 120 Hispanic/Latino 100 African American 80 Asian 60 40 20 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 51 GRADE- AND CLASSROOM-LEVEL ANALYSIS National Center on Response to Intervention 52 Grade Level—Analyzing Effects of Changes to Instruction Handout 100 Percent 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 12 15 10 14 15 32 5573 53 76 20 10 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 53 Analyzing Growth of Special Education Students by Grade or Class Words Read Correctly 140 Other 120 Target Scores Special Education 100 80 60 40 20 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 54 Classroom Comparison Fall 70 Winter Score 60 Spring 50 40 30 20 10 Class 1 National Center on Response to Intervention Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 55 ID 01256 02343 Name Jim Jenny Corrects 107 107 16705 02341 Jackie Jill 105 103 23602 14507 06235 Jerry Jack Jerome 101 101 90 01267 20002 00012 Joann Jared Jason 88 86 80 Established Established Established Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention 12325 Jeff 77 Established Continue Primary Prevention 02345 01384 04312 08752 Jessica Jen Jim Jeremy 77 74 72 71 Established Established Established Established Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Emerging > 70 Emerging 14562 Jackson 69 09873 Jessie 69 05631 02344 12074 13551 Jillian Juanita Jaclyn Janet 60 57 55 53 01834 Jade 43 23515 Center James 39 National on Response 22145 to Intervention Jed 31 Errors Accuracy Performance Summary Established Established Potential Instructional Action Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Established Established -------------Cut score = 102----------Established Established Established Emerging Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Continue Primary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Deficient > 46 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 56 IDENTIFYING STUDENTS IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL SUPPORT National Center on Response to Intervention 57 Student Comparison Lower than Norm 90th%ile 75th%ile 200 50th%ile Score 175 25th%ile 150 10th %ile 100 Target Student 75 50 25 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 58 Student Comparison Higher than Norm 90th%ile 75th%ile 200 50th%ile Score 175 25th%ile 150 10th %ile 100 Cut score Student 75 50 25 Fall National Center on Response to Intervention Winter Spring 59 Identifying Students in Need of Additional Support May vary based on needs and resources of school • Target or criterion scores • Lowest percentage of students whose needs can be met by resources (e.g., 20%) If more than 20%, focus should be on improving core instruction/curriculum National Center on Response to Intervention 60 Secondary Level or Tertiary Level Support Access to supplemental supports may be based on school resources ID Name 1256 Jim 107 Established Continue Primary Prevention 2341 Jill 103 Established Continue Primary Prevention Cut Score=100 6235 Jerome 90 Established Continue Primary Prevention 2345 Jessica 77 Established Continue Primary Prevention Emerging > 75 1384 4312 National Center on Response to Intervention Jen Jim Corrects Errors 74 72 Accuracy Performance Summary Potential Instructional Action Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Emerging Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention Assess and Consider Secondary Prevention 13551 Janet 53 Emerging Deficient> 46 1834 Jade 43 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 22145 Jed 31 Deficient Assess and Consider Need for Tertiary Prevention 61 Problems with Cut Scores to Determine Supplemental Support 80% 56% National Center on Response to Intervention 96% in need 62 Target Identification Rate Target identification rate is the proportion of students to be identified as at risk. • May depend on program objectives and resources. Unique target identification rates may be specified for different skill areas. Schools and districts will need to think about reallocating resources or securing additional funds to support all students in need. National Center on Response to Intervention 63 Determining Target Identification Rate Tertiary 3% 5% Secondary 15% 12% Primary 80% 85% School 1: School 2: Resources available for 20% Resources available for 15% National Center on Response to Intervention 64 Things to Remember Good data IN… Good data OUT • Know where your data came from and the validity of that data Focus on the big picture for ALL students • Are most students making progress? ALL instructional and curriculum decisions should be based on DATA. Keep it SIMPLE and EFFICIENT! National Center on Response to Intervention 65 Need More Information? National Center on Response to Intervention www.rti4success.org RTI Action Network www.rtinetwork.org IDEA Partnership www.ideapartnership.org National Center on Response to Intervention 66 National Center on Response to Intervention This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Grant No. H326E07000.4 Grace Zamora Durán and Tina Diamond served as the OSEP project officers. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. This product is public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: www.rti4success.org. National Center on Response to Intervention 67