An Analysis of Consistency Between Team Decisions and Reading Assessment Data Within an RTI Model
Abstract
Data-based decision making by teams is central to implementation of response to intervention (RTI) models. Few studies have examined the actual decision-making process within RTI systems of service delivery. The purpose of this study was to examine the tier assignment decisions for students across grade-level teams in three K–5 elementary schools implementing identical RTI models for reading. Decisions of grade-level teams primarily composed of teachers were compared against the recommendation made by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) universal screening measure during fall and winter assessments across a 2-year period. Results showed teams had high overall levels of agreement with the DIBELS recommendations, especially after Grade 1 and during the winter of each year. When teams initially disagreed with the DIBELS recommendations, increased agreement in the use of data-based decisions was present over time. Implications for the data decision-making process within an RTI model are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When decision making teams use multiple pieces of data (i.e., universal screening data, CBM, in-class assessments), they increase decision accuracy.
“When decision making teams use multiple pieces of data (i.e., universal screening data, CBM, in-class assessments), they increase decision accuracy [45].”
From Using Evidence-Based Practice and Data-Based Decision Making in Inclusive Education (2021) · cites this paper as [45]
Cites
Reliability of Decision-Making Frameworks for Response to Intervention for Reading
Burns, M. K., Scholin, S. E., Kosciolek, S., & Livingston, J. (2010) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282909342374 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using Evidence-Based Practice and Data-Based Decision Making in Inclusive Education
Wilcox, G., Fernandez Conde, C., & Kowbel, A. (2021) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci11030129 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“Research on the accuracy of decision making demonstrates the importance of gathering accurate data and to avoid making decisions solely based on judgment or intuition [45].”
BackgroundReed, D. K. (2015) · RMLE Online · doi:10.1080/19404476.2015.11462119 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shapiro, E. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Gischlar, K. L., Semeniak, K., Leichman, E., & Bowles, S.
- Affiliations
- Lehigh University (US)
- Minnesota State University, Mankato, Mankato, MN, USA
- Rider University (US)
- Child Care Associates, Fort Worth, TX, USA
- Venue
- Remedial and Special Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-02-18
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 335-347
- ISSN
- 0741-9325 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4756
- OpenAlex
- W2169619660
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Remedial and Special Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Keywords
- Response to Intervention, data-driven decision making, team decision-making, DIBELS, universal screening, reading assessment, early literacy, elementary school, K-5 students, decision consistency, teacher teams
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
