2006 OSEP Project Directo 2006 OSEP Project Directo rs Meeting rs Meeting 1 Screening and Screening and Progress Monitoring Progress Monitoring for Identification of for Identification of Reading Disabilities Reading Disabilities within an RTI Model within an RTI Model Donald L. Compton, Douglas Fuchs, and Donald L. Compton, Douglas Fuchs, and Lynn S. Fuchs Lynn S. Fuchs Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University National Research Center on Learning Disabilities National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (Funded by OSEP) (Funded by OSEP)
Screening and Progress Screening and Progress Monitoring for Identification of Monitoring for Identification of Reading Disabilities within an Reading Disabilities within an
RTI ModelRTI Model
Donald L. Compton, Douglas Fuchs, and Lynn S. FuchsDonald L. Compton, Douglas Fuchs, and Lynn S. FuchsVanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt University
National Research Center on Learning DisabilitiesNational Research Center on Learning Disabilities
(Funded by OSEP)(Funded by OSEP)
22
RTI: Three TiersRTI: Three Tiers Tier 1Tier 1
− General education General education Research-based program Research-based program Faithfully implementedFaithfully implemented Works for vast majority of studentsWorks for vast majority of students Screening for at-risk pupils, with weekly monitoring of at-risk response Screening for at-risk pupils, with weekly monitoring of at-risk response
to general educationto general education
Tier 2Tier 2− Small-group preventative tutoringSmall-group preventative tutoring− Weekly monitoring of at-risk response to tier 2 interventionWeekly monitoring of at-risk response to tier 2 intervention
Tier 3Tier 3
• Multi-disciplinary team evaluation for possible disability certification and special education placement.
33
Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for
All Students,Staff, & Settings
Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group
Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior
Tertiary Prevention:Specialized
IndividualizedSystems for Students with
Intensive Needs
~80% of Students
~15%
~5%
CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE
SUPPORT
44
RTIRTI: Screening in Tier 1: Screening in Tier 1
Children are assessed to specify who enters the RTI Children are assessed to specify who enters the RTI process.process.
RTI success depends on accurate specification of this RTI success depends on accurate specification of this risk pool. risk pool.
Perfect screening would result in 100% accurate Perfect screening would result in 100% accurate identification of “True Positives” (those who will identification of “True Positives” (those who will develop RD) who will go into Tier 2 interventions develop RD) who will go into Tier 2 interventions and “True Negatives” (those who will not develop and “True Negatives” (those who will not develop RD) who will be excluded from Tier 2 intervention.RD) who will be excluded from Tier 2 intervention.
55
Two Types of Screening ErrorsTwo Types of Screening Errors Two types of errors challenge the accuracy of Two types of errors challenge the accuracy of
procedures for determining risk. procedures for determining risk. − False positivesFalse positives
Children who eventually become good readers score Children who eventually become good readers score below the screening cut score and are falsely identified as below the screening cut score and are falsely identified as at risk. at risk.
Undermine RTI’s prevention purpose by increasing the Undermine RTI’s prevention purpose by increasing the number of children identified at risk and thereby stressing number of children identified at risk and thereby stressing school resources to provide intervention to an inflated school resources to provide intervention to an inflated percentage of the population. percentage of the population.
− False negativesFalse negativesChildren who later exhibit reading problems score above Children who later exhibit reading problems score above
the cut score and are falsely identified as the cut score and are falsely identified as notnot at risk. at risk. Diminish the utility of RTI prevention by failing to provide Diminish the utility of RTI prevention by failing to provide
intervention to children who will eventually develop RD.intervention to children who will eventually develop RD.
66
Identifying Children Who Are Identifying Children Who Are Responders (not at risk for LD) Responders (not at risk for LD) and Nonresponders (at risk for and Nonresponders (at risk for
LD) to Tier 1 Instruction:LD) to Tier 1 Instruction:
Hypothetical Case StudiesHypothetical Case Studies
77
Sarah’s Progress on Words Sarah’s Progress on Words Read CorrectlyRead Correctly
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Wo
rds
Re
ad C
orr
ect
ly
Sarah Smith Reading 2
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
88
Jessica’s Progress on Words Read Jessica’s Progress on Words Read CorrectlyCorrectly
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Wo
rds
Re
ad C
orr
ect
ly
Jessica Jones Reading 2
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
99
Decision Point 1:Decision Point 1: Can we accurately identify children Can we accurately identify children who are at-risk for becoming RD?who are at-risk for becoming RD?
(i.e., Sarah vs. Jessica)(i.e., Sarah vs. Jessica)
1010
NRCLD Study PurposeNRCLD Study Purpose
Explore issues affecting development of decision Explore issues affecting development of decision rules for selecting 1rules for selecting 1stst graders for Tier 2 intervention graders for Tier 2 intervention within an RTI model of LD identification.within an RTI model of LD identification.
Research questions:Research questions:− What is the added predictive utility of including initial What is the added predictive utility of including initial
word identification fluency (WIF) or 5 weeks of WIF word identification fluency (WIF) or 5 weeks of WIF PM to a multivariate screening battery (that already PM to a multivariate screening battery (that already includes phonemic awareness, rapid naming skill, and includes phonemic awareness, rapid naming skill, and oral vocabulary)?oral vocabulary)?
− Are there advantages to using classification tree analysis Are there advantages to using classification tree analysis over logistic regression in developing statistical over logistic regression in developing statistical prediction rules?prediction rules?
1111
Overview of Study MethodsOverview of Study Methods
252 identified low study entry 1252 identified low study entry 1stst graders. graders. In October, administered a multivariate prediction battery: In October, administered a multivariate prediction battery:
Monitored progress with WIF, each week for 5 weeks; Monitored progress with WIF, each week for 5 weeks; calculated 5-week slope and level.calculated 5-week slope and level.
At end of grade 2, administered standardized reading battery: At end of grade 2, administered standardized reading battery: untimed and timed measures of word identification and word untimed and timed measures of word identification and word attack and reading comprehension. Used the composite score attack and reading comprehension. Used the composite score across these measures to classify children as RD/non-RD. across these measures to classify children as RD/non-RD.
1212
Word Identification Fluency Word Identification Fluency (WIF)(WIF)
CBM used to monitor the development of CBM used to monitor the development of overall reading skill from beginning to end of overall reading skill from beginning to end of 11stst grade. grade.
In previous work, strong predictive validity In previous work, strong predictive validity for initial WIF and for year-long WIF slopes for initial WIF and for year-long WIF slopes with respect to end-of-year decoding, word with respect to end-of-year decoding, word recognition, reading fluency, and reading recognition, reading fluency, and reading comprehension performance.comprehension performance.
1313
Example of a WIF ProbeExample of a WIF ProbeList 1
Tree AnalysisTree Analysis 174/0/20/12174/0/20/12 96.896.8 100.0100.0 93.593.5 .982.982
1515
1616
Implications for Tier 1 ScreeningImplications for Tier 1 Screening
Results suggest that the potential exists to develop decision Results suggest that the potential exists to develop decision rules that allow identification of the “right” children to enter rules that allow identification of the “right” children to enter Tier 2 early in 1Tier 2 early in 1stst grade. grade.
Additional work is needed to replicate and extend findings.Additional work is needed to replicate and extend findings. Schools planning to implement an RTI approach to LD Schools planning to implement an RTI approach to LD
identification should put considerable thought into designing identification should put considerable thought into designing an effective system for designating a risk pool that enters Tier an effective system for designating a risk pool that enters Tier 2 intervention that maximizes true positives and minimizes 2 intervention that maximizes true positives and minimizes false negatives.false negatives.
For complete information on study see:For complete information on study see:
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006).Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting At-Risk Selecting At-Risk Readers in First Grade for Early Intervention: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study of Readers in First Grade for Early Intervention: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study of Decision Rules and Procedures.Decision Rules and Procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409394-409..
3-4 sessions per week (30-45 min per session)3-4 sessions per week (30-45 min per session)
Conducted by trained and supervised personnel (not Conducted by trained and supervised personnel (not the classroom teacher)the classroom teacher)
In or out of classroomIn or out of classroom
10-20 weeks10-20 weeks
1818
What does Tier 2 look like?What does Tier 2 look like?
Hypothetical Case StudiesHypothetical Case Studies
What does Tier 2 look like?What does Tier 2 look like?
Hypothetical Case StudiesHypothetical Case Studies
1919
2020
2121
2222
Decision Point 2Decision Point 2Can characteristic growth patterns Can characteristic growth patterns of children who are either LD and of children who are either LD and not LD be identified from Tier 2 not LD be identified from Tier 2 instruction?instruction?
2323
Instructional Groups and Outcome Instructional Groups and Outcome MeasuresMeasures
Randomly to Randomly to Fall Tutoring Fall Tutoring ((nn = 84); S = 84); Spring Tutoring—pring Tutoring—Maybe Maybe ((nn =84); and =84); and No Tutoring Control No Tutoring Control ((nn = 84). Total = 84). Total NN = 252.= 252.
PM on WIF for 18 weeks of 1PM on WIF for 18 weeks of 1stst grade grade Outcome assessment in April of 3Outcome assessment in April of 3rdrd grade grade
− Untimed decoding (WRMT Word Attack)Untimed decoding (WRMT Word Attack)− Untimed word identification (WRMT WID)Untimed word identification (WRMT WID)− Reading comprehension (WRMT Passage Reading comprehension (WRMT Passage
Comprehension)Comprehension) A variable for RD at the end of 3A variable for RD at the end of 3rdrd grade was created based grade was created based
on performance below a standard score of 85 on the on performance below a standard score of 85 on the WRMT measures. Complete records for 180 children. WRMT measures. Complete records for 180 children.
− Letter-Sound RecognitionLetter-Sound Recognition− Phonological awareness and decodingPhonological awareness and decoding− Sight WordsSight Words− FluencyFluency
Four GroupsFour Groups− Fall Tutoring (n=61)Fall Tutoring (n=61)− Spring Tutoring for Nonresponsive Children (n=32)Spring Tutoring for Nonresponsive Children (n=32)− Spring No Tutoring for Responsive Children (n=32)Spring No Tutoring for Responsive Children (n=32)− Controls (No Tutoring, n=55)Controls (No Tutoring, n=55)
SessionsSessions− Conducted by research assistantsConducted by research assistants− 2-4 students per group2-4 students per group− 4 sessions/week4 sessions/week− 45 minutes/session45 minutes/session− For a total of 36 sessions of tutoringFor a total of 36 sessions of tutoring
2525
Growth Mixture ModelGrowth Mixture Model
CBM1 CBM2 CBM3 CBMi. . .
SI
CCG
U1 U2 Ui
F
X1 X2 XiKnown Classes Reading - Fall tutoring - Spring tutoring necessary - Spring tutoring not necessary - Control Math - Average - Control - Tutoring
Growth Patterns Associated with LDGrowth Patterns Associated with LD 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Weeks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Wor
ds R
ead
Cor
rect
/Min
ute
Fall Tutoring-RD (n=8)Fall Tutoring-NonRD (n=53)Spring Tutoring-RD (n=11)Spring Tutoring-NonRD (n=21)Spring No Tutoring-NonRD (n=8)Spring No Tutoring-NonRD (n=24)Control-RD (n=11)Control-NonRD (n=44)
RD Groups
2727
Fall Tutoring GroupsFall Tutoring Groups 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Weeks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Wor
ds R
ead
Cor
rect
ly/M
inut
e
Fall Tutoring-RD (n=8)
Fall Tutoring-NonRD (n=53)
2828
Spring Tutoring NecessarySpring Tutoring Necessary 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Weeks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Wor
ds R
ead
Cor
rect
/Min
ute
Spring Tutoring-RD (n=11)
Spring Tutoring-NonRD (n=21)
2929
Spring Tutoring UnnecessarySpring Tutoring Unnecessary 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Weeks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Wor
ds R
ead
Cor
rect
/Min
ute
Spring No Tutoring-NonRD (n=44)
Spring No Tutoring-NonRD (n=8)
3030
ControlControl 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Weeks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Wor
ds R
ead
Cor
rect
ly/M
inut
e
Control-RD (n=11)
Control-NonRD (n=44)
3131
LD Rates by GroupLD Rates by Group
GroupGroup Within Group LD Rate Within Group LD Rate (percentage)(percentage)
Fall TutoringFall Tutoring 13%13%
8/618/61
Spring Tutoring YesSpring Tutoring Yes 38%38%
12/3212/32
Spring Tutoring NoSpring Tutoring No 0%0%
0/320/32
ControlControl 20%20%
11/5511/55
3232
Can characteristic growth patterns of Can characteristic growth patterns of children who are either LD and not LD children who are either LD and not LD
be identified for Tier 2 instruction?be identified for Tier 2 instruction?
Characteristic LD and nonLD growth curves were Characteristic LD and nonLD growth curves were identified for first graders using the progress identified for first graders using the progress monitoring measures.monitoring measures.
The percentage of children identified as LD varied as The percentage of children identified as LD varied as a function of group in a predictable fashion.a function of group in a predictable fashion.
There is reason to be optimistic that response to Tier There is reason to be optimistic that response to Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction can accurately identify 1 and Tier 2 instruction can accurately identify children unresponsive to quality instruction.children unresponsive to quality instruction.
