The DBI process builds on a validated intervention program. This may also be called an evidence-based standard-protocol intervention or a Tier 2 intervention.
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
In this video, Ralph P. Ferretti, Professor of Education and Psychological & Brain Sciences at the University of Delaware explain why it is important to consider both the study quality and the study results when determining the evidence base of an intervention.
It is important that the instructional practices and interventions delivered within a school’s multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) be grounded in evidence. However, the “practice” that happens within each tier is different; therefore, the type of evidence that is required for each tier also must be different. A useful way to think about evidence-based practices in MTSS is to think about levels of evidence that vary and correspond to the different levels of intervention intensity at each tier. In the tables below, find resources to support the selection and evaluation of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 or intensive interventions.
These professional learning training materials are intended to assist district or school teams involved in initial planning or implementation of data-based individualization (DBI) as a framework for providing intensive intervention in academics and behavior. The modules listed below provide an overview of the DBI process and more in-depth exploration of the various components of DBI.
Diagnostic tools provide data to assist educators in designing individualized instruction and intensifying intervention for students who do not respond to validated intervention programs. Diagnostic tools can be either informal, which are easy-to-use tools that can be administered with little training, or standardized, which must be delivered in a standard way by trained staff. Teams may find it helpful to initially consider using more informal and easily accessible diagnostic tools and data to avoid loss of instructional time. Standardized diagnostic tools, which require more time to administer and interpret, may be required for students who continually demonstrate a lack of response or who require special education.
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.
The purpose of this document is to increase the capacity of practitioners and educational leaders to support a broad range of learners who need more literacy supports to become skilled readers and writers by identifying a set of essential practices that are research-supported and should be the focus of professional development. These practices for intensifying literacy instruction apply to those learners with severe and persistent reading and writing challenges who have not responded when provided with instruction aligned with state academic standards, regardless of disability status.
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.
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.
In this webinar, Drs. Tessie Rose Bailey and Zach Weingarten from the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the PROGRESS Center, as well as Thom Jones from the Wyoming Department of Education and Justine Essex from Freedom Elementary School in Cheyenne, Wyoming shared how to set ambitious goals for students by selecting a valid, reliable progress monitoring measure, establishing baseline performance, choosing a strategy, and writing a measurable goal.