The Behavior Progress Monitoring Tools Chart is comprised of evidence-based progress monitoring tools that can be used to assess students’ social, emotional or behavioral performance, to quantify a student rate of improvement or responsiveness to instruction, and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. The chart displays ratings on technical rigor of performance level standards (reliability and validity) and growth standards (sensitivity and decision rules) and provides information on the whether a bias analysis was conducted, and key usability features. The chart is intended to assist educators and families in becoming informed consumers who can select behavior progress monitoring tools that address their specific needs. The presence of a particular tool on the chart does not constitute endorsement and should not be viewed as a recommendation from either the TRC on Behavior Progress Monitoring or NCII.
Error message
The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the words in the page you tried to access.
Search
Resource Type
DBI Process
Subject
Implementation Guidance and Considerations
Student Population
Audience
Search
Monitoring Student Progress for Behavioral Interventions (DBI Professional Learning Series Module 3)
This module focuses on behavioral progress monitoring within the context of the DBI process and addresses: (a) methods available for behavioral progress monitoring, including but not limited to Direct Behavior Rating (DBR), and (b) using progress monitoring data to make decisions about behavioral interventions.
Progress monitoring, a key component of a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS), occurs throughout the data-based individualization (DBI) process to assess responsiveness to the validated intervention platform, as well as adaptations to the intervention. Prior to delivering the validated intervention platform, intervention teams should develop a progress monitoring plan that outlines the progress monitoring tool, student goal, and frequency of data collection and review. During delivery of the validated and adapted intervention, educators should collect and graph frequent progress monitoring data.
This webinar challenges current thinking about how to set appropriately ambitious and measurable behavioral goals in light of the 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District decision by the United States Supreme Court. Dr. Teri A. Marx from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Dr. Faith G. Miller from the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, share how to set ambitious behavioral goals for students by using a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, and how to write measurable and realistic goals focused on the replacement behavior.
The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview of behavioral progress monitoring and goal setting to inform data-driven decision making within tiered support models and individualized education programs (IEPs).
Assessment is an essential part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Without technically sound assessment, which provides accurate, meaningful information, a teacher has no objective method for determining what a student needs or how to intensify instruction to meet those needs. The close connection between assessment and intervention is at the foundation of the DBI process. This connection is what drives teacher decision making. With the right assessment tools and guidance on how to use them, teachers can make sound, data-based decisions about who needs intensive intervention, when to make instructional changes, and what skills to focus on. In the tables below, find resources to support the selection and evaluation of screening, progress monitoring and diagnostic assessments.
On May 8, 2019, Drs. Mitch Yell, David Bateman, Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx presented Recommendations and Resources for Preparing Educators in the Endrew Era. In this webinar, Drs. Yell and Bateman draw on their recent article Free Appropriate Public Education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for Personnel Preparation in Teacher Education and Special Education. They provide an overview of Endrew’s impact on individualized instruction for students with disabilities and share six recommendations for preparing educators to meet the clarified requirements under Endrew. Drs. Tessie Bailey and Teri Marx, experts from the National Center on Intensive Intervention, illustrate how NCII resources and technical assistance supports can assist states, local agencies, and educators to address these recommendations and improve design and delivery of individualized instruction in academics and behavior.