Progress Monitoring and RtI: Questions from the Field

Edward S. ShapiroDirector,

Center for Promoting Research to PracticeLehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

Progress Monitoring Role and RtI

Primary method of evaluating student outcomes of instructional intervention

Typical methods use General Outcomes Measurement

Most common is CBM Establish expected rates of gain Establish expected levels of performance Outcomes used to establish response to

intervention

Questions From the Field What should be the expected level of

improvement to set goals? Are these measures linked to state

assessments? What do I use as a valid measure of reading

beyond 5th grade instructional level (and for those situations where ORF does not reflect reading performance)?

What do I use for PM in math? What do I use for PM at middle and

secondary levels?

PA – statewide effort to establish expected levels of performance for students with LD

3 year effort Extensive training lead by PaTTAN

and IU Statewide data collection and

reporting Outcomes establish average rates of

improvement across students with LD

Outcomes of PM in PA2004 -2005

1,963 special education students monitored

149 districts, 24 IU’s LD = 1,502 (76.5%); SED = 88

(4.5%); MR = 223 (11.4%) 1,654 (84.3%) = reading; 599 =

math computation (30.5%) ; 60 = math concepts (3.1%)

FOR LD: 1,277 Reading; 447 Math computation; 46 = math concepts

Comparison of PA PM to Fuchs Study in Reading-Instructional Level

Grade Fuchs Study

Reg Ed

All SpED Students

2004 –2005

LD2004 2005

All SpED Students2003 –2004

LD2003 – 2004

1 2.0 1.07 1.15 1.02 .85

2 1.5 1.18 1.18 1.40 1.10

3 1.0 1.08 1.09 .88 1.06

4 0.85 1.19 1.23 1.08 1.19

5 0.5 1.07 1.07 1.06 .91

6 0.3 1.17 1.27 1.07 1.22

Comparison of PA PM to Fuchs Study in Compute-Instructional Level

Grade Fuchs StudyReg Ed

PDE Benchmarks All SpED Students

2004 -2005

LD

2004 2005

1 n/a .3 .29 .27

2 0.3 .3 .31 .32

3 0.3 .3 .35 .33

4 0.70 .45 .26 .27

5 0.70 .45 .19 .20

6 0.45 .19 .22

PM Conclusions from PA

Validated selection of expected rates of gain in reading

More data needed in math Statewide impact of training in PM

How are these measures related to outcomes of state high stakes assessments? State assessments are linked to curriculum standards GOM measures, especially in reading, show strong

predictions to state assessments Across states, correlations between .6 and .8 (over 15

states) Sensitivity/Specificity indices show very good true

positive, true negative; values for false positive/false negative, not quite as good

Measures meet expected standards for screening but may not be as desirable for high stakes decisions

We may need to do better than screening level measures for these decisions

How are these measures related to outcomes of state high stakes assessments?

Research Need Examine degree to which additional

measures beyond CBM contribute to improving prediction to state assessment

Recent study by Compton et al. (Journal of Ed Psych)

Balance additional measurement with unnecessary, over assessment

What do I use to measure reading beyond the 5th grade instructional level?

ORF known to lose sensitivity to instructional change beyond 5th grade instructional level

Skills in reading at this level require assessment of comprehension and critical thinking

Current GOM in reading comprehension (Maze), not been carefully evaluated for use at this level

What do I use to measure reading beyond the 5th grade instructional level?

Research Needs Measurement tool needed that shows

sensitivity to reading instruction at this level

Measurement tool needs to have credibility with reading personnel

Measurement tool needs to be efficient Late developing reading problems?

Progress Monitoring in Math: Can math be assessed using a GOM? Early grades, multiple skill computational assessment

appears to be adequate Beyond early grades, computational assessment

relationships to overall outcomes in math performance

Credibility problems – linkage to math curriculum is questioned, especially those using curricular such as Everyday Math

Use of Concepts/Applications progress monitoring partially addresses problem, but relationship to state assessment not as strong as reading (correlations in .5- .6 range)

Progress Monitoring in Math: Can math be assessed using a GOM?

Does math require a specific subskill mastery method of assessment? No validated metrics for progress

monitoring at this time How will we establish response-to-

intervention for math difficulties without GOM?

What will we use to establish expected levels of performance and rates of gain?

What do we use for PM at middle and secondary school levels?

PM research efforts focused on elementary level and basic skill development

What validated measures do we have for middle and secondary school students experiencing academic skills problems?

Some initial work (Chris Espin & colleagues, Gerry Tindal & colleagues, Anne Foegen & colleagues, in math) in areas such as written language, algebra, but much more development needed

Positives about PM

Feasible to be used at elementary level

Statewide implementation and training is feasible

Strong GOM in reading (ORF) up through 5th grade

Questions about PM Credibility of GOM in reading beyond 5th

grade instructional level PM in math remains significant question –

GOM or SS PM as SS – validated measures? PM at middle and secondary level remains a

question Need to recognize the high stakes nature of

the questions we are asked to answer using PM data