Linking Assessment to Intervention: What Today’s

School Psychologist Should Now for Tomorrow’s Practice

Gary L. Cates, Ph.D., NCSP

Illinois State University

School psychologists will survive based on the extent to which we can offer something that general

and special educators and clinical psychologists do not.

A Change in IDEA?

• The IQ-Achievement discrepancy focus– Advantages?– Disadvantages?– Shortcomings?

• The Response to intervention focus– Advantages?– Disadvantages?– Shortcomings?

Future Concerns

• Must have training and knowledge in academic intervention and consultation

• Must provide interventions that are evidenced based

• Must have training in monitoring and evaluating intervention implementation

A Potential Methodology: Brief Experimental Analysis of Academic

Responding

• Quickly alternating between multiple interventions to facilitate intervention selection

• Has been demonstrated to facilitate intervention selection for Mathematics and Reading fairly well

Current Experimental Analysis of Reading Intervention Methods

• Focuses on reading Rate as primary decision rule

• Treatment Selection Validity has not been validated over time

• Function of reading is to comprehend text

• Treatment Selection Validity has not been assessed with regard to comprehension

Purposes of Study 1

• Replicate earlier studies related to Experimental Analysis of Reading Interventions

• Extend earlier research by investigating comprehension

• Extend earlier research by expanding the number of treatment decision rules

General Information

• 6 2nd grade students referred for slow reading rate problems (<110wrcpm)

• All receiving Title I services

• 2 males (1 Hispanic; 1 Caucasian)

• 4 females (1 Hispanic; 1 Caucasian)

• None had been retained nor were receiving special education services

General Procedures - Student

• Students instructed to read a grade level passage

• Students were instructed to read and answer 10 comprehension questions at the end of the passage (5 inferential, 5 factual)

• 1 daily trial of each IV for 5 consecutive days. IV administration randomized daily.

Reading Fluency Interventions

• Contingent Reinforcement (CR)

• Repeated Readings (RR)

• Listening Passage Preview (LPP)

• LPP/CR

• RR/CR

• RR/LPP

General Procedures - Experimenter

• Recorded reading rate for first minute of reading

• Scored number of comprehension questions answered correctly

• Errors: Substitutions, omissions, & pauses >3 sec resulted in the word being supplied

• Insertions were ignored

Intervention SelectionDecision Rules – Reading Rate

• Must have the most points above school district criterion

* 110 WRCPM

• Must have the highest mean level

• Must have steepest trend (based on VI)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

SESSIONS

WO

RD

S R

EA

D C

OR

RE

CT

LY

PE

R M

INU

TE

LPP/CR

LPPCR

RR

RR/CR

RR/LPP

KATHY

BL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

SESSIONS

WO

RD

S R

EA

D C

OR

RE

CT

LY

PE

R M

INU

TE

LPP

CR

RR

BL

RR/LPP

LPP/CR

RR/CR

KARLA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

SESSIONS

WO

RD

S R

EA

D C

OR

RE

CT

LY

PE

R M

INU

TE

RR/LPP

CR/LPP

LPP

RR

RR/CR

CR

BL

MARK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

SESSIONS

WO

RD

S R

EA

D C

OR

RE

CT

LY

PE

R M

INU

TE

(W

RC

PM

)

BL

CR

LPP

RR/LPP

CR/RR CR/LPPRR

Renee

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

SESSIONS

WO

RD

S R

EA

D C

OR

RE

CT

LY

PE

R M

INU

TE

RR/CR

RR/LPP

RR

LPP

CR

CR/LPP

STEVE

BL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

SESSIONS

WO

RD

S R

EA

D C

OR

RE

CT

LY

PE

R M

INU

TE

LPP

RR/LPP

RR

BL

CR RR/CR

LPP/CR

ADENA

Intervention Decision Rule for Comprehension

• Largest mean comprehension level across all 5 trials of a given condition.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Kathy Karla Mark Renee Steve Adena

PARTICIPANT

ME

AN

PE

RC

EN

T C

OM

PR

EH

EN

SIO

N

Baseline

RR

LPP

CR

RR/CR

CR/LPP

RR/LPP

Table 1 Summary of the interventions that resulted in the greatest performance as a function of words read correctly per minute (WRCM) and mean percent comprehension levels (MPCL) for all participants

WRCM MPCLKathy CR** RRKarla RR/LPP RR/LPPMark LPP/CR LPP or LPP/CRRenee RR/LPP RRSteve RR/CR* LPP or CR

Adena LPP* LPP

CR = Contingent Reinforcement, RR = Repeated Reading, LPP = Listening Passage Preview* Did not meet target criterion** Multiple interventions met target criterion

Conclusions

• Different interventions for different students

• Comprehension and Reading rate matched up for three of the 6 students

• Brief Experimental Analysis needs more research over time

• Brief Experimental Analysis needs more research with regard to comprehension

How is this Relevant to a Response to Intervention Model of Service

Delivery?

• Demonstrates empirical evidence for intervention implementation

• Does not simply rely on “trying something” approach.

• Emphasizes the importance of intervention specificity by person and by variable (i.e., problem area).

What about other reading Behaviors?

• One method for increasing reading fluency might be to decrease the rate of reading errors

• Substitutions, Omissions, Insertions, and Pauses

• Is intervention specificity important here?

Purpose of Study 2

• Investigate utility of BEA with error correction procedures

• Determine if treatment conditions affect intra-individual student reading behavior consistently

• Determine if treatment conditions affect inter-student reading behavior consistently

General Information

• 3 3rd grade students referred for high level of “reading error problems”

• 1 male (Caucasian)

• 2 females (1 African American; 1 Caucasian)

• None had been retained nor were receiving special education services

General Procedures - Student

• Students instructed to read a grade level passage

• 1 daily trial of each IV for 5 days. IV administration randomized daily.

Error Correction Interventions

• Word Supply

• Word Drill

• Sentence Repeat

General Procedures - Experimenter

• Recorded reading rate for entire passage

• Implemented Error correction procedures

• Noted Errors on an examiner probe

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

W S S R W D W S S R W D W S S R W D W S S R W D

P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s - S u b s t it u t io n P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s - P a u s e s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s - In s e r t io n s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s -O m m is io n s

L y d i a

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

W S S R W D W S S R W D W S S R W D W S S R W D

P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s S u b s t it u t io n s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s - P a u s e s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s - In s e r t io n s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s -O m m is s io n s

Per

cen

t o

f E

rro

rs

J i m m y

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

W S S R W D W S S R W D W S S R W D W S S R W D

P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s S u b s t it u t io n s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s - P a u s e s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s - In s e r t io n s P e r c e n t o f E r r o r s -O m m is s io n s

E r i n

Conclusions:

.1. Extension: Investigated error correction procedures (consequence procedure)2. Extension: Investigated error types and

error rate in addition to reading rate3. Effects of intervention on error rates did not affect each student in the same manner.4. Effects of intervention on reading rates did not affect each student in the same manner.5. Within each participant, an error type by treatments interaction existed.

How is this relevant to a Response to Intervention Model of Service

Delivery?• We may need to rethink about error

correction procedures as potential interventions.

• BEA is a tool that needs to be fully investigated with regard to it’s utility.

• We need to consider assessing the carry over effects of interventions to other related reading behaviors.

Predictions for the Future?

• A Response to Intervention Model Focus is on the Horizon.

• We need school psychologists trained in single case research design, useful academic assessment, academic intervention, consultation

• We need to advance existing intervention evaluation procedures and develop new

• We need to better understand current interventions and develop new

School psychologists will survive based on the extent to which we can offer something that general

and special educators and clinical psychologists do not.