Three-Tier Intervention Research Studies: Descriptions of Two Related Projects

by Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D. and David Chard, Ph.D.

Funded in October of 2001, but formally initiated in January of 2002, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) launched a systematic and coordinated investigation into the effectiveness of multiple tiers of intervention on reading and behavior outcomes for students at-risk and with disabilities in kindergarten through 3rd grade. OSEP funded six projects and one coordinating center to assure that data collection, organization, and reporting would provide maximum influence and coherence on the effectiveness of tiered intervention models as a means of preventing or reducing reading and behavior difficulties and providing insight into the effectiveness of response to intervention (RTI) models for identifying students with learning and behavior problems.

Two projects were funded to examine behavioral interventions only (university of Oregon, Sugai and Horner; University of Nebraska, Nelson and Elliott), two projects were funded to examine both reading and behavioral interventions (University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Algozzine; University of Kansas, Kamps & Greenwood), and two projects were funded to examine reading interventions only (University of Oregon, Kame´enui, Chard, and Harn; University of Texas, Vaughn and Linan-Thompson). This paper will provide a brief overview of the two projects that are addressing tiered interventions for preventing reading difficulties and disabilities.

The University of Texans and University of Oregon Prevention/Intervention Projects

Overview. Both projects (University of Texas/University of Oregon) have implemented prevention-oriented, school-wide approaches to improving early reading performance for all students. Primary prevention occurs at a systems level to reduce the number of new cases (incidence) of a potential problem (e.g., reading difficulties, learning disabilities, reading disabilities) in the population. In contrast, secondary intervention is concerned with reducing the number of existing cases (prevalence) of an already identified condition or problem. Secondary prevention “involves the promotion of compensatory skills and behaviors. The extra effort is focused on children at higher risk of developing reading difficulties but before any serious, long-term deficit has emerged” (National Research Council, 1998, p. 16). Finally, tertiary intervention is concerned with reducing the complications associated with an existing and identified problem or condition.

Primary prevention, is based on research and development efforts over the past several years to scale up, implement, and document school-wide systemic strategies and processes for effectively reforming a school’s efforts to prevent reading difficulties for all readers (Simmons et al., 2001; Good, Simmons, & Kame´enui, 2001). Primary prevention designed to “prevent” children from becoming at risk for reading problems should accommodate approximately 80% of the K-3 students enrolled. The comprehensive reading programs, instructional strategies, standard time allocations, and delivery features of the school represent the primary prevention investments by the K-3 teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, and administrators. Primary prevention also involves school-wide, formative assessments of critical pre-reading and reading skills. This assessment, administered three times per year, provides educators timely information on the reading performance of all students and evidence of the effectiveness of the comprehensive instructional program.

Secondary intervention involves programs, strategies, and practices designed and employed to supplement, enhance, and support primary prevention for those students 9identified with marked reading difficulties. Secondary intervention is designed to both enhance and stabilize the primary prevention efforts and to prevent the need for tertiary intervention. Secondary intervention typically accommodates approximately 15% of the school population, specifically the K-3 students who are not benefiting adequately from primary prevention.

Tertiary intervention consists of reading instruction that is specifically designed and customized for students who continue to have marked difficulties in reading or reading disabilities, despite primary prevention and secondary intervention efforts. Tertiary intervention is typically reserved for 5% of the K-3 students (Simmons, et. al., 2000); (Torgeson, 2000). Tertiary intervention is customized to the individual reading and literacy needs of each student.

Layered interventions or tiered models are based on the premise that students who struggle with reading need additional supports and that the further behind students are, or the more difficulties they have, the more intensive an extensive these supports need to be (O’Connor, 2000). The first tier of intervention, primary intervention, is designed to address the majority of students’ needs. The essential features of the primary intervention include: (a) a comprehensive reading program based on scientific reading research, (b) screening of all students to determine instructional needs at least three times per year (these typically occur in the fall, winter, and spring), and (c) ongoing professional development to provide teachers with the necessary tools to ensure every student is likely to succeed or if struggling, will be identified early and provided the necessary additional instruction. The second tier, secondary intervention, is designed for those students who are initially at risk and for whom a specified intervention in addition to the comprehensive reading program is required. Students who require secondary intervention are identified two ways: (a) they are students who are identified as “newly at risk” based on screening or (b) they are students whose response to intervention is promising and the team has decided to maintain their progress in secondary intervention. The secondary intervention may be provided by the classroom teacher, a specialized reading teacher, or an interventionist trained to provide the secondary (Tier II) intervention. The secondary intervention, in addition to the comprehensive reading program, may vary in time to meet students’ needs but is often from 15-30 minutes per day and often is provided in group sizes of one to six. The third tier tertiary intervention is designed for those students who are: (a) very significantly behind and require extensive and intensive intervention, (b) students for whom the secondary intervention was insufficient (low responders to intervention), or (c) students with severe reading disabilities or dyslexia. Table 1 provides an overview of primary, secondary, and tertiary instruction.

What Type of Professional Development Was Provided to Teachers as Part of Primary Intervention?

Professional development activities were conducted at the grade level with those high impact activities and the practices associated with improved outcomes for students as the target. For example, the professional development for kindergarten teachers focused on letters and sounds, alphabetic principle, and initial sound blending and word reading. In all grade levels we addressed the importance o vocabulary and comprehension – however in kindergarten we addressed listening comprehension through expository and narrative text and in 2nd and 3rd grad we addressed independent use of comprehension strategies to promote understanding and learning from text. All teachers at each grade level across all elementary schools in the district (approximately 55 teachers per grade level)( and all principals participated collectively in approximately 27 hours of professional development each year for two years. The topics covered in the professional development sessions included effective features of instruction, progress monitoring, reading comprehension instruction, partner read king, the use of progress monitoring data to make instructional decisions, targeting instruction in small groups, vocabulary instruction, and phonics in early grades and advanced word study instruction in older grades. In addition to the professional development sessions, limited in-class caching (approximately two times per month) was provided as a follow-up by the research team to assist teachers in the implementation of strategies provided during the professional development sessions.

Study Design-University of Texas. The University of Texas research project employs a longitudinal design including treatment and control groups at each of the three tiers. The primary intervention involves a treatment and historical control condition. The secondary and tertiary interventions are experimental students with random assignment to treatment and comparison conditions. Student progress over time is analyzed using multiple assessments individually administered by our research team. During the first year of the study, a historical control group was identified and assessed. Teachers at each of the participating schools were not provided professional development nor were any of their students provided supplemental instruction by the research team. The historical control group has been followed through the end of the third grade. During the second year of the study, implementation of the tertiary intervention model began with the primary intervention provided to all kindergarten teachers and the secondary intervention provided to a randomly selected group of at risk kindergarten students. Each subsequent year we are working with the next grade level so that during the 2005-2006 year we will be working with 34d grade teachers and their students. As students move from one grade to the next, teachers at each successive grade level participate in the ongoing professional development program and students continue to be provided primary and secondary intervention (grades K and 1st) and then primary and tertiary intervention (grades 2nd and 3rd). Students receive secondary or tertiary intervention based on their lack of adequate progress in reading.

The UT research project began with the goal of examining a model of a school-wide program incorporating best practices in all the critical areas of effective instruction including: (a) effective reading instruction for all students, (b) professional development, (c) early identification of students at risk for reading problems, (d) effective interventions for students at risk, (e) the deployment of resources to sustain the program, and (f) the involvement of parents and families. the UT project is designed not only to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the increasingly intensive layers of intervention, but also to address a number of critical research questions, including the following:

• What percentage of K-3 students in the treatment and control groups compared to the historical control, are identified as at-risk?
• Are K-3 students in the treatment and control groups comparable to students in the historical control with respect to ethnicity, SES, ELL, and other demographic variables?
• What percentage of at-risk K-3 students fail to meet the end-of-year benchmarks after receiving secondary intervention? Tertiary intervention? Typical School Services?
• Is response to intervention (RTI) a feasible practice to implement in schools and does it assist in referral and placement in special education?

Thus far, we have implemented primary intervention with kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade teachers and students and collected data to determine the effects on teachers’ practices and students’ outcomes. We have also implemented secondary intervention for two cohorts of at-risk students during their first grade year and are currently involved in tertiary intervention implementation with both cohorts of students. We have collected data to determine the effects of these interventions and student response to each level of intervention.

Initial comparisons between the historical control group and kindergarten and first-grade students participating in intervention indicates that, overall, students participating in primary intervention demonstrated improved reading outcomes when compared with students in the historical control group, and the number of students needing secondary intervention has decreased. Implementation of secondary intervention for kindergarten and first-grade at-risk readers improves student reading outcomes over time and allows most students to exit intervention (all but about 5%). The results indicate that increasingly intensive layers of intervention hold promise as a means of reducing the number of students at risk for reading difficulties and increasing the likelihood that students who demonstrate persistent difficulties are being appropriately identified for further interventions. Our data also suggests that we can identify students as early as January of first-grade, based on response to intervention, who are not adequate responders. Our intention is to further examine progress as students move into higher grades. We are also interested in how students perform on an end of third grade group administered reading comprehension measure, the SAT-10.

How do we identify response to intervention? In most cases, response to an intervention is defined based on meeting a specific criteria and/or a students’ slope of progress (Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Al Otaiba, 2003). A student who meets criteria for being an on-level reader has responded to the intervention. Additionally, educators may consider a student’s slope of progress in determining response. A student demonstrating a slope of progress that is steep enough to indicate the student will meet on-level criteria may be considered a “responder”. The student then continues in the intervention until on-track status is achieved. Frequent monitoring of progress is needed to be certain the slope of progress continues to indicate the student will reach on-track status. Alternatively, if a student’s slope of progress is not steep enough to indicate they will be on-level readers, that student may be considered a “non responder”. Changes in the instructional program or a more intensive intervention may be required for this student.

Study Design of the CIRCUITS Model: University of Oregon

Project CIRCUITS employs a mixed methodology, including a longitudinal design as well as several experimental designs, to answer specific instructional questions. In Year 1, we studied the implementation of primary prevention in two fast growing school districts in the Pacific Northwest. our goal in Year 1 was to document instructional behaviors associated with primary prevention in schools that had been implementing a research-based comprehensive reading program to meet the majority of its students’ needs in the general education classroom.

During the second year of the study, implementation of secondary and tertiary interventions began with first graders. In subsequent years we worked in the subsequent g4rade level so that during the 2005-2006 year we are working with 3rd grade students. Students receive secondary or tertiary intervention based on their lack of adequate progress in reading as measured by the DIBELS assessment system.

In addition to following a group of students across multiple grades to document the effectiveness of the CIRCUITS prevention model on at-risk readers, we have also designed experimental studies to answer the following questions:

• What are the instructional features of secondary and tertiary interventions that accelerate student reading development?
• Are there differential effects for students who receive secondary and tertiary comprehensive curriculum versus non-project interventions?
• What are the effects of using controlled text versus less controlled text on increasing the reading fluency of second grade students at risk for reading disabilities in secondary intervention?

As part of Project CIRCUITS we have implemented secondary and tertiary intervention and collected data to determine the effects on students’ reading outcomes. Preliminary results suggest that across the grades, students identified as at-risk for reading difficulties need sustained support to improve reading outcomes over time. With this sustained support, however, most students were able to achieve at or near grade level on measures of reading fluency. Our data also seem to suggest that CIRCUITS interventions in first and second grade that were closely aligned with primary prevention and responsive to student growth resulted in greater gains in reading fluency than comparison interventions. These results suggest that the CIRCUITS model may be an effective system to reduce the number of students who experience reading difficulties in the primary grades.

Currently, we are working on secondary and tertiary interventions for third graders that focus on teaching vocabulary and comprehension skills and strategies while continuing to build reading fluency in connected texts. Additionally, we are examining the differences between secondary vocabulary and comprehension interventions that are designed by commercial textbook publishers and interventions that are designed to more closely mirror the comprehensive instructional components. We anticipate that the results of this study will help schools make decisions about the nature of effective vocabulary and comprehension interventions for at-risk readers.

Common Features of the Models

Both the University of Texas and the University of Oregon intervention models are designed to prevent reading difficulties by implementing strong comprehensive reading instruction in general education classrooms in the primary grades. both models also focus on using a system of assessments for determining which students need additional support beyond the comprehensive instruction. Finally, both models are designed to provide high quality reading interventions focused on the key knowledge and skills associated with successful reading development in the primary grades. Schools interested in implementing one of these models should consider the following tips for implementation.

Tips for implementation:

1. Focus on improving the comprehensive classroom reading instruction (Primary) that all students receive.
2. Provide high-quality intervention (Secondary and Tertiary) for struggling readers.
3. Participate in ongoing professional development to enhance classroom implementation of research-based practices.

Further considerations for implementation are presented in Table 2.

References

• Fuchs, D., Fucs, L. S., McMaster, K. N., and Al Otaiba, S. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and the dual-discrepancy approach. In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S.E. Graham (Eds.), Handbook on learning disabilities (pp.431-449). New York: Guilford
• Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., Kame´enui, E. J. (2001) The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3) 257-288.
• National Research Council (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• O´Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(1), 43-54.
• Simmons, D. C., Kame´enui, E. J., Good III, R. H., Harn, B. A., Cole, C., & Braun, D. (2000). Building, implementing, and sustaining a beginning reading model: School by school and lessons learned. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 43(3), 3-30.
• Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 55-64.

NOTE: Special Recognition to our colleagues who work with us on these projects: University of Texas team include Co-Pls Sylvia Linan-Thompson and Batya Elbaum (University of Miami); Jeanne Wanzek, Christy Sanderson, Kim Rodriguez, Thea Woodruff, Jade Hjelm, Jennifer Meyer, and Christie Cavanaugh. Our consultant is Joe Torgesen (Florida State University). The University of Oregon team includes Co-Pl Beth Harn, Annie Hommel, Patrick Kennedy Paine, Tany Sheehan, Leslie Simmons, and Mike Stoolmiller.

Dr. Sharon Vaugh holds the H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corp. Regens Chair in Human Development. She is the author of numerous books and research articles that address the reading and social outcomes of students with learning difficulties. She is currently the Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator on several Institute for Education Science, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, and Office of Special Education Programs research grants investigating effective interventions for students with reading difficulties and students who are English language learners.

Dr. David Chard is an Associate Professor at the University of Oregon, College of Education where he serves as Associate Dan for Curriculum and Academic Programs and Major Director of Special Education. Dr. Chard is a principal investigator on three federal research projects on reading, reading comprehension instruction and mathematics. He also serves as a Co-Principal Investigator to a federally funded center on school-wide models of preventing reading difficulties.