RTI in Early Childhood

Amanda VanDerHeyden

Education Research & Consulting, Inc.

RTI

• The systematic use of assessment data The systematic use of assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources in to most efficiently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all order to enhance learning for all students (Burns & VanDerHeyden, students (Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006).2006).

Essential Elements

• Screening• Intervention intensity matched to child need• Progress monitoring• Outcomes of intervention efforts linked to

service allocation decisions and program evaluation

Why RTI in EC/EI?

• Adults embrace the idea that early intervention is meant to repair and prevent future learning and behavior deficits and excesses

• Less learning history available• Technical adequacy of measures is

problematic (Neiworth & Bagnato, 1992)

Grade level corresponding to age

1 2 3 4

Re

ad

ing

gra

de

lev

el

4

3

2

1

5

2.5

5.2

At Risk on Early Screening

Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of Reading Difficulty

Low Risk on Early Screening

This Slide from Reading First Experts

J

From Reading First

Grade level corresponding to age

1 2 3 4

Re

ad

ing

gra

de

lev

el

4

3

2

1

5

2.5

5.2

Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes

At Risk on Early Screening

Low Risk on Early Screening

3.2

Control

With research-based core but without extra instructional intervention

4.9

Interventio

n

With substantial instructional intervention

This Slide from Reading First Experts

J

From Reading First

Hart & Risley

• Rate of vocab growth at age 3 correlated with PPVT (.58) and TOLD (.74) scores at age 9-10

• Vocab use at age 3 (.57, .72) and r = .56 with comprehension scores from the CTBS.

• SES moderately correlated with vocab growth, use, and PPVT scores (r =.5-.6)

• H & R interpret as different parenting behaviors being associated with SES accounting for observed differences by SES

Cumulative Language Experience by SES

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

welfare workingclass

professional

words heard perhour

Ratio of Encouragements to Discouragements per Hour

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

welfare workingclass

professional

encourage:discourage

Ideas that have Failed us

• Children will “outgrow” early skill deficits– Waiting/delaying intervention– Retention– “Transition” classes

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

A u g u s t S e p t e m b e r O c t o b e r N o v e m b e r J a n u a r y F e b r u a r y

R u p e l A v e r a g e

B a s e l i n e H e a d s p r o u t

Best Growth= 5.25 words permonth before Headsprout

Growth= 18 words permonth with Headsprout

Average Scores Before and After Headstartfor a 1st Grade Class Receiving Headsprout

Prior to Headsprout the children were learning about 5.25 words per month which does not meet theminimal standard for growth. Growth with Headsprout was 18 words per month, far exceeding the

minimal standard.

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

A u g u s t S e p t e m b e r O c t o b e r N o v e m b e r J a n u a r y F e b r u a r y

A v e r a g e

G r a d e A v e r a g e

B a s e l i n eH e a d s p r o u t

This Class is Catching up to the Grade’s Average(smaller difference between the blue bar and the red bar following

Headsprout)

Grade “best” growth 7.5 wordsper month; compares favorablyto national standards for growth

Growth with Headsprout morethan doubled the grade’s

growth and outperforms thenational standard for growth

Detailed Progress

R u p e l ' s C l a s s

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

A u g u s t S e p t e m b e r O c t o b e r N o v e m b e r J a n u a r y F e b r u a r y

A d a m s K a i t l y n

A l v a r e z I n g r i d

A n d e r s o n J o s e p h

B a r c o H a i l e y

B a r t o n M a d e l y n

C o n r a d K a l e b

F i e r r o s A r m a n d o

K a m p e l m a n G a v i n

K e p l e r H u n t e r

L a n d r y A n d r e w

L a w l o r J a r r e t t

R e y n a E m i l i o

S t a m p e r H a l e y

W a s h i n g t o n D e o n t e

W e b e r J a c k s o n

W i l l m o t t T y l e r

H e a d s p r o u t b e g a n h e r e

Ideas that have Failed us

• Providing an enriched environment is sufficient to meet the needs of all “typically-developing” children

BlocksBooks

Dramatic Play

Fine Motor Toys

computer

Sand

Art

door

•We identified the two least contacted activity centers for each child.

Circle

0102030405060708090

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Baseline Stimulus Alteration Baseline Adult Prompting Baseline Adult Prompt

010

20

3040

50

6070

80

90100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Sessions

Baseline

AdultPrompt

Stimulus Alteration + Adult Prompt Baseline Stimulus Alteration

Katilyn

GregPercent Interval Center Contact with Low Contact Centers

Measures of Cognitive Ability Not Useful at K and 1st

• Children who can detect/manipulate rhymes, phonemes, or syllables learn more quickly to read irrespective of IQ, vocab, memory, and SES (Wagner et al., 1994).

• Measures of cognitive ability were not useful for reaching screening decisions or allocating instructional resources (Vellutino, 1996)

Direct Msrs of Early Literacy were Useful

• Letter-sound association and use of sounds to read words– strong predictor of reading achvmt at end of first grade (Smith, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998).

• Direct msrs of early reading skills were useful (Vellutino, 1996)

Science of Prevention• Entering phonological ability, SES, and

attention/behavior– strongly predict reading growth (Torgesen et al., 1999).

• Torgesen et al. (2001)- 40% of children exposed to intensive intervention were exited from special education within one year of completion (60 8-10 year old children identified with LD)

• More than half of children provided with intervention at 1st grade performed in the average range following intervention (Vellutino, 1998).

Early Math Findings• Children are not attaining minimal

standards for competency in math by end of formal schooling.

• Children in poverty disproportionately represented (Griffin & Case, 1997; Starkey, Klein, & Wakeley, 2004).

• Early intervention repairs and prevents (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns, 2001; Griffin & Case, 1997; Phillips, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1996).

Early Behavior Findings

• Summarize walker data from ABAI- get from website

• Summarize fox and center for challenging behaviors

• Summarize elliott too here

Consensus to• Prevent most reading problems by reducing

the # of children who enter school with poor emergent literacy skills (oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing skills)- NRP

• Prevent early mathematics deficits by screening, providing intervention in early numeracy

• Permit school success by proactive and early training in “ready to learn” behaviors

These are not new ideas to EC/EI

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

AnyCurriculum

Area

Students

Dave Tilly, 2005

Building Blocks (Sandall & Schwartz,

2002)High-quality learning environment

Curricular Modifications/Adaptations

Embedded Instruction

Naturalistic or responsive teaching for individual Tier 4?

Teaching Pyramid (Fox et al., 2003)Building Positive

Relationships

Classwide prevention

Social-emotional teaching strategeis

Intensive Individual interventions Tier 4?

DEC Recommended Practices (Wolery,

2005)High-quality learning environment

Ongoing formative data to improve child-environment fit

Systematic procedures to promote learning and participation

Let’s abandon the ideas that have failed us

• Emphasis on Maturation– Let’s intervene early

• Emphasis on Enriched Environment– Let’s ensure sufficient opportunities to gain

important skills

• Emphasis on Teacher and Parent self-report and checklists– Let’s obtain direct measures of child performance

at regular intervals and in response to intervention trials

RTI Connects Efforts in EC/EI

• To bring evidence-based practices to early childhood

• To monitor progress and intervene early

• To connect what happens in EI to pre-K and pre-K to K and beyond

• To move beyond disability-driven service delivery

Benefits of RTI in EC/EI

• Models at EC/EI emphasize inclusion

• Potential for more children to receive support and high-quality intervention

• Decision accuracy will be enhanced

Old Way

with disabilitywithout disability

At Risk!

New Way

Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3

Some Powerful Opportunities

• Allows us to measure the potential for learning and growth (VanDerHeyden, 2005)

• And as a result, to accelerate growth

Accurate Letter Naming

Fluent Letter Naming

Association of Letters with phonemes

Accurate Letter Sound Production

Fluent Letter Sound Production

Pronounce beginning word sounds

Mastery Model Measurement

CBA or Mastery Model

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 3 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 21 24 26

Sessions

Correct Per Minute

Intervention Letter Names

Intervention Isolated Letter Sounds

InterventionAlliteration

InterventionBlending Sounds

LetterNames

Letter Sounds

Alliterations

SoundBlends

CBM or General Outcome

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 3 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 21 24 26

Sessions

Words Read Correctly Per Minute

InterventionLetter Names

Intervention Isolated Letter Sounds

InterventionAlliteration

InterventionBlendingSounds

CBA versus CBM

• Target: Drinking from cup at snack time– Hypothesis: grasping problem– Intervention: alter handle to make grasping easier,

provide practice using adapted cup, reinforce correct cup use

• Alternative hypotheses are plausible that can be tested directly– Skill related-- child cannot bring cup to mouth

fluently– Performance related-- child is not thirsty, does not

like the drink offered, finds spilled liquid aversive

Was intervention effective?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sessions

Percentage of Opportunities

grasps

Baseline Adapted Cup

Did you solve the problem?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sessions

Percentage of Opportunities

grasps

sips

Baseline Adapted Cup

How about now?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sessions

Percentage of Opportunities

sips

grasps

Baseline Adapted Cup

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sessions

Percentage of Opportunities

grasps

sips

Baseline Adapted Cup Preferred Liquid

We should

• Measure the behaviors we are targeting and measure whether those effects contribute to improved general outcomes

• Assessment has too narrowly focused on individual sub-skills generally in the form of a developmental checklist

Enhanced Decision Accuracy

• High base rates for risk (low-performing sample) (35 children in pre-K and headstart) Alliteration and rhyming probes outperformed Brigance Screens in predicting who would perform in the risk range on DIBELS subtests (ISF and LNF)

• Intervention improved the stability of the risk decision in two preschool classes (rank-order became more stable across intervention trials when rhyming performance was the predictor).

• Classwide intervention produced stronger gains than did individual intervention.

• The bottom 50% was relatively stable throughout intervention, but only one child was identified as needing further intervention following classwide and individual intervention

• Intervention placed children on aimline for mid-year kinder success for 8 of 20 and 11 of 15 in second sample (headstart sample was lower performing to start but 26/32 considered at risk on Brigance)

Highlight

• Barnett et al 2006

• Gettinger and stoiber 2007

Some Common Problems

• Integrity of intervention implementation

• Don Deshler- Attempt, Attack, Abandon

Some Unique Challenges

• What are the key outcomes?• Insufficient progress monitoring tools• More variable environments (teachers, PT,

OT, ST, SP, some children at home, some in childcare only, some in preschool)

• Unclear what decision rules at what timepoints to inform movement between tiers of intervention

• Difficulty of measurement

What can I do Tomorrow

• Examine Tier 1-- see where you are in three key areas

• Install technically adequate screening and progress monitoring

• Follow data and engage in problem solving

• Year 2- install Tier 2 interventions

Resources

• www.naspweb.org- early childhood position statements

• Best Practices• Big Math for Little Kids• Number Worlds• Headsprout• Kansas Center• www.rtinetwork.org