Providing Intensive Intervention using
Data-Based Individualization (DBI) in
Academics
Rebecca Zumeta, Ph.D.
TA&D Coordinator
November 2012
Today’s Webinar
 The need for intensive intervention
 Using Data-Based Individualization (DBI) to
provide intensive intervention in academics
 DBI process with student example
 Kelsey- reading
 Time for questions
2
Intensive interventions are designed to
address severe and persistent learning or
behavior difficulties. These interventions
should be data driven and are characterized
by increased intensity (e.g. smaller group,
expanded time) and individualization of
academic instruction and/ or behavioral
supports.
3
The Need for Intensive Intervention
 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress data indicate
that approximately 2/3 of students with disabilities performed below
the Basic proficiency level in reading and math at 8th grade. The
same was true for 4th grade reading; Nearly half were below Basic
for 4th grade math.
 4 out of 5 are either unemployed or work in low-paying jobs as young
adults (NLTS-2).
 Although the dropout rate has declined significantly over the past 10
years, students with learning disabilities continue to drop out of
school at a much higher rate than their non-disabled peers (Cortiella,
2011).
 Many tiered intervention initiatives have not sufficiently addressed
students with the most intensive needs.
4
The Need for Intensive Intervention
Not all students respond to standardized,
evidence-based interventions…
Analysis of student response data from controlled studies
suggests that approximately 3-5% of students do not
respond to standard, evidence-based intervention
programs (Fuchs et al., 2012; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2009;
Conduct Prevention Problems Research Group, 2002).
• Despite interventions being generally effective for
students demonstrating difficulty
• Categorization of ‘risk’ may be too broadly defined in
these studies to generalize to students with the most
intensive needs
5
What does this suggest?
 Although standardized, evidence-based (i.e., secondary, Tier 2, or
remedial curriculum materials) interventions are effective for many
students, they may be insufficient for those with the most intensive
needs.
 There is likely no “silver bullet” intervention program(s) that will
meet the needs of all students who have significant and persistent
academic or behavior challenges.
 For some students, individualized, intensive intervention will be
necessary to facilitate progress. Student data and guiding
principles for intensifying intervention should drive these decisions.
Note: Many good teachers already adjust their instruction; DBI is a
process that helps them to do so in a more systematic and datadriven way.
6
Who needs intensive intervention?

Students with disabilities who are not making
adequate progress in their current instructional
program.

Students with disabilities who present with very
low academic achievement, and/or high-intensity
or high-frequency behavior problems

Students in a tiered intervention program who
have not responded to secondary intervention
programs delivered with fidelity
7
NCII’s Approach to Intensive Intervention:
Data-Based Individualization (DBI)
Data-Based Individualization (DBI) is a systematic method for
using data to determine when and how to provide more
intensive intervention:
 Origins in data-based program modification/ experimental
teaching first developed at the University of Minnesota
(Deno & Mirkin, 1977) and expanded upon by others
(Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Fuchs, Fuchs, &Hamlett,
1989b; Capizzi & Fuchs, 2005).
 DBI is a process, not a single intervention program or
strategy.
 Not a one-time fix—Ongoing process comprising
intervention and assessment adjusted over time
8
Is DBI the same as RTI? Special Education?
Many components of DBI are consistent with elements of
special education and tiered service delivery systems.
Although DBI does not have to operate within these
systems, it certainly could. Such designations may vary
by context.
Tiered Interventions
(RTI, MTSS, PBIS)
• Remediation program/
secondary intervention
platforms a precondition
(usually)
• Progress monitoring
• Team-based decisions
based on data
Special Education
• Individualized instruction/
intervention
• Progress monitoring
• Team-based decisions
based on data
9
Before starting DBI, consider the
secondary intervention platform…



Has the student been taught using an evidencebased secondary intervention platform that is
appropriate for his/her needs?
Has the program been implemented with fidelity?
• Content
• Dosage/schedule
• Group size
Has the program been implemented for a sufficient
amount of time to determine response?
Note: You may think of “secondary platform” as Tier 2, strategic
intervention, or the remedial curriculum materials you use for
struggling learners.
10
Secondary Intervention Platform: Deliver
evidence-based intervention with fidelity
11
NCII’s Intervention Tools Chart provides reviews
of secondary intervention platforms
 Behavior Tools: Coming Soon!
 Academic Tools:
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructionalintervention-tools
12
Secondary Intervention Platform:
Student Example
Kelsey
Background: Kelsey emerged with serious reading
problems, reading at an early 2nd grade level at the
beginning of 4th grade.
Intervention Platform: Kelsey’s teacher selected a
research-validated program that addressed
phonological awareness, word study, and fluency skills.
13
Secondary Intervention Platform
Student Example
Kelsey
Fidelity
 Group size: 2-6 students
 Duration: 20-40 minutes per session
 Frequency: 3-4 sessions per week for 7 weeks
 Instructional content & delivery: Explicit instruction
covering all components laid out in the instruction
manual
 Progress Monitoring: Passage Reading Fluency
collected weekly
14
Caveat Regarding Secondary
Interventions
A small number of students may present with
very significant academic or behavioral
difficulties where a standardized secondary
intervention alone is unlikely to be effective.
Intervention teams may choose to bypass the
secondary intervention platform in favor of
moving directly to intensive intervention in these
instances. However, decisions to bypass a
standardized secondary platform should be
made on an individual, case-by-case basis.
15
Progress Monitoring: Is the secondary
intervention working?
16
Progress Monitoring
Collect progress monitoring data using a
validated assessment tool. Consider…
1.
2.
3.
4.
Frequency of assessment needed
Reliability and validity of the assessment
Assessment’s ability to detect improvement
The rate of change at which a student should
progress to meet his/her goal
5. The amount of time needed to determine
response
Note: NCII is planning a future webinar on progress monitoring.
Please visit www.rti4success.org for more resources for progress
monitoring.
17
Progress Monitoring: Student Example
Kelsey
Valid tool: Kelsey’s teacher implemented formal
progress monitoring each week, using passage
reading fluency (PRF) assessments
Detect improvement : This progress monitoring tool
was able to detect changes in Kelsey’s reading, given
her skill level.
Rate of progress: Based Kelsey’s progress
monitoring graph, she was not progressing at the rate
needed to meet her goal.
18
Progress Monitoring
Kelsey’s Example- Reading
Baseline
Initial
Instruction
Instructional Change
Number of w ords read correctly in 1 minute
140
120
100
Goal Line
80
60
40
20
0
Date
19
Next Steps
 Despite a secondary intervention
delivered with fidelity, Kelsey continued to
make insufficient progress.
 The intervention team decided that more
intensive supports were needed.
 Additional data will help the team to
individualize the intervention
20
Diagnostic Assessment: What changes
are needed to support Kelsey?
21
Diagnostic Assessment
 Progress Monitoring assessments help
teams to determine when an instructional
change is needed.
 Diagnostic assessments help teams
determine the nature of the intervention
change needed.
22
Diagnostic Assessment
Potential Data Sources:
 Classroom-based assessments
 Error analysis of progress monitoring data
 Functional behavior assessment (FBA)
 Student work samples
 Standardized measures (if feasible)
Note: NCII has planned a future webinar on use of diagnostic assessment to
inform instructional planning. It will take place in early 2013.
23
Diagnostic Assessment: Student Example
Kelsey
 To determine the nature of the instructional change
needed, Kelsey’s teacher conducted an error analysis
of Kelsey’s most recent passage reading fluency data.
 She also administered a phonics survey to determine
Kelsey’s decoding strengths and weaknesses.
24
Intervention Adaptation: Use Diagnostic
Information to Adapt the Intervention
25
Intervention Adaptation/Change
 When appropriate, use diagnostic data to make
adjustments/adaptations to the secondary
intervention platform to meet the unique needs of
the individual.
 In some cases, however, data may indicate that
the student requires a different intervention
platform or approach.
Consider Two types of intervention change:
• Quantitative
• Qualitative
26
Quantitative Changes
 Increase intervention length, frequency, or
duration
 Decrease group size
 Decrease heterogeneity of the intervention
group
 Increase the skill level of the interventionist
Note: In many cases, quantitative changes may be
necessary, but not sufficient to facilitate progress for
students with intensive needs.
27
Qualitative Changes
Qualitative adaptations may also be made to
the intervention platform that alter the way the
content is delivered, how students respond, or
the amount of adult feedback and error
correction they receive.
28
Qualitative Changes:
Principles of Intensive Intervention
 Use precise, simple language to teach key concepts or procedures.
 Present the same or a similar partially worked example. Explain why
the step is important, have the student do it, and explain importance.
 When introducing a concept, provide worked examples and show the
steps in writing.
 Break tasks into smaller steps, compared to less intensive levels of
instruction/intervention.
 Provide concrete learning opportunities (including role play and use
of manipulatives)
 Use explicit instruction and modeling with repetition to teach a
concept or demonstrate steps in a process.
 Have students explain new concepts, in their own words,
incorporating the important terms you’ve taught.
(Fuchs et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2012)
29
Qualitative Changes:
Principles of Intensive Intervention
 Once students can complete entire examples and explain their
work, incorporate fluency building activities.
 Once students can fluently produce correct work, move to a new
concept. Provide ongoing practice opportunities to facilitate skill
maintenance.
 Fade steps from examples, so students gradually assume
responsibility for completing more and more steps.
 Provide explicit error correction, and have student repeat the
correct response. Provide repeated opportunities to correctly
practice the step.
(Fuchs et al., 2008; Vaughn et al., 2012)
Note: NCII is planning future webinars to provide more details about
the application of these principles.
30
Coming Soon! NCII Adaptation Guides
Exemplars of adapted, focused
instruction in reading and mathematics



Explicit examples of application of principles of
intensive intervention
Identification of relevant Common Core
Standards
Includes: instructions with sample teacher talk,
downloadable materials, and worksheets for
extra practice—Coming Soon to
www.intensiveintervention.org
31
Intervention Adaptation: Student Example
Kelsey
1. Data suggested that Kelsey inadequately relied on
semantics when reading. Thus, her teacher introduced a tape
recorder activity to help monitor semantic miscues.
2. Data showed that Kelsey also had difficulty applying
decoding strategies to vowel teams. Thus, her teacher
applied the following intensive intervention principles to
intensify her decoding instruction:
• Increased explicit instruction of vowel teams
• Incorporated fluency practice of newly taught teams, with
specified mastery criteria
• Provided explicit error correction
• Checked for retention over time
32
Ongoing Progress Monitoring: Is the
student responding to the adapted,
instruction? Is the response sufficient?
33
Progress Monitoring: Evaluation of Student
Progress
Kelsey
 Kelsey’s teacher again studied her progress—She
had improved substantially with this revised
program, but her most recent 4 progress monitoring
scores still fell below her goal line.
 Given this, Kelsey is not likely to achieve her goal.
Another instructional change is needed.
 Kelsey’s teacher may collect additional diagnostic
data if needed to inform the instructional change(s).
 She will continue to collect progress monitoring data
and meet with the intervention team to evaluate
progress and further modify the plan as needed.
34
In Summary
 DBI is an ongoing process that comprises ongoing
assessment, intervention, evaluation, and
adjustment to maximize student outcomes.
 Intensive interventions will not look the same for
all students
 Students requiring intensive intervention are likely
to need it for a significant amount of time.
 There is no quick fix.
35
Caveats & Implementation Tips
 DBI is intense. If more than 3-5% of students in a school appear to
need it, consider evaluating core instruction, school-wide behavior
supports, and secondary intervention programs.
 Academic and behavior supports do not exist in isolation; They are
often most successful when combined to meet students’ individual
needs.
 When making intervention adaptations, consider choosing a small
number to try at a time. This will allow you to be more systematic in
your ongoing progress monitoring and analysis.
 Every student presents unique needs. While our examples provide
an illustration of the DBI process, it will vary based on individual
needs. Some DBI processes will be much more involved than
others.
36
References
Capizzi, A.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Effects of curriculum-based measurement
with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and
Special Education, 26 (3), 159-174.
Conduct Prevention Problems Research Group (2002). Evaluation of the first 3
years of the Fast Track prevention trail with children at high risk for
adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(1),
19–35.
Cortiella, C. (2011). The State of Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: National
Center for Learning Disabilities.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Leadership Training Inst. for Special Education, M.
n. (1977). Data-Based Program Modification: A Manual.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L.& Mirkin, P.K. (1984). The effects of curriculum-based
measurement evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student
awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2),
449-460.
37
References
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D, & Hamlett, C.L. (1989b). Effects of instrumental use of
curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional
programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 43-52.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher,
J. M. (2008). Intensive Intervention for Students with Mathematics
Disabilities: Seven Principles of Effective Practice. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 31(2), 79-92.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs., L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation
approach to
multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263-279.
National Center for Education Statistics, (2011). The Nation's Report Card:
Mathematics 2011. Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and
8. NCES 2012-452. National Center For Education Statistics.
38
References
National Center for Education Statistics, (2011). The Nation's Report Card:
Reading 2011. Trial Urban District Assessment Results at Grades 4 and 8.
NCES 2012-455. National Center For Education Statistics.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive
interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice
guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low
response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 24(3), 151-163. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00289.x
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & SRI International, M. A.
(2005). Changes over Time in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with
Disabilities. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition
Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).
Online Submission.
39
Disclaimer
This webinar was produced under the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs, Award No. H326Q110005.
Celia Rosenquist serves as the project officer.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily
represent the positions or polices of the U.S.
Department of Education. No official endorsement by
the U.S. Department of Education of any product,
commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this
website is intended or should be inferred.
40
Rebecca Zumeta, Ph.D.
E-Mail: rzumeta@air.org
1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007- 3835
General Information: 866-577-5787
Website: www.intensiveintervention.org
41
NCII Survey
Thank you for participating in this NCII Webinar!
We are very interested in your experience,
and would like to ensure future Webinars are
presented effectively. Please take a moment
to click the link below and fill out this survey—
it will take you 5 minutes!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DJSB9VT
42