Resources

Carta, J. J., & Greenwood, C. R. (2014). Continuous progress monitoring for young children. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.crtiec.org/aboutcrtiec/documents/ContinuousProgressMonitoringforYoungChildren-Integrated.ppt

Center for Early Education and Development. (2014). Get it, got it, go! website. Accessed on November 25, 2014, from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/CEED/projects/ggg/default.html

Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood. (2010). Individual growth & development indicators: Their role in the CRtIEC measurement architecture. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ceed/projects/crtiec/resources/crtiec_panel_CRIEI_2010_9_PM_Tracy_2-25.pdf

Collier-Meek, M. A., Fallon, L. M., Sanetti, L. M., & Maggin, D. M. (2013). Focus on implementation: Assessing and promoting treatment fidelity. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(5), 52–59.

CONNECT. (n.d.). Module 7: Tiered instruction. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://community.fpg.unc.edu/connect-modules/learners/module-7/introduction

Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2011, July). Thinking and communicating clearly about evidence-based practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children whitepaper. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.cecdr.org/pdf/Thinking_and_Communicating_Clearly_About_Evidence-based_Practices_in_Special_Education.pdf

DeFazio, C. M., Fain, A. C., & Duchaine, E. L. (2011). Using treatment integrity in the classroom to bring research and practice together. Beyond Behavior, 20(1), 45–49.

Dibels Data Systems. (2014). Dibels website. Accessed on November 25, 2014, from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/

Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 17(2), 5–18.

Early Learning Labs, University of Minnesota. (2014). MyIGDIs website. Accessed on November 25, 2014, from http://www.myigdis.com/

Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & McConnell, S. (2011). Advances in measurement for universal screening and individual progress monitoring of young children. Journal of Early Intervention. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://jei.sagepub.com/content/33/4/254.full.pdf

Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D., Buzhardt, J., & the IGDI Work Group. (2014). Continuous progress monitoring measures for intervention research and accountability in early childhood. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http
%3A%2%2Fies.ed.gov%2Fdirector%2Fconferences%2F08ies_conference%2Fppt%2Fgreenwood.ppt&
ei=8590VM7XE_SHsQTyyIGACw&usg=AFQjCNFzTrV5kwsq3IsAHHg4-uxq0P0NWQ&sig2=nsWlx0A6miwh_9y0TYyeBA&
bvm=bv.80185997,d.eXY

Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 181–193.

Kaminski, R., Abbott, M., Bravo-Aguayo, K., Latimer, R., Good, R., & Dynamic Measurement Group. (2013). Examining the validity and utility of an assessment of preschool early literacy skills: Preschool early literacy indicators (PELI). PowerPoint presentation.

Kretlow, A. G., & Blatz, S. L. (2011). The ABC’s of evidence-based practice for teachers. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(5), 8–19.

McConnell, S. (2010). Progress monitoring in early childhood, part 2: Collecting and using progress monitoring data for language and literacy development. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.cehd.umn.edu
/ceed/publications/presentations/McConnell/Workshop_2_Progress_Monitoring.pdf

McManis, L. D. (2012). 5 simple steps for progress monitoring in early childhood programs. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://hatchearlylearning.com/5-simple-steps-for-progress-monitoring-in-early-childhood-programs/

Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation 24(3), 315–340.

National Center on Response to Intervention (2013, January). Progress monitoring brief #3: Common progress monitoring graph omissions: Making instructional decisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/RTI%20ProgressMonitoringBrief3-Making%20Instructional%20Decisions.pdf

Sanetti, L. M., Fallon, L. M., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2013). Increasing teacher treatment integrity through performance feedback provided by school personnel. Psychology in the Schools, 50(2), 134–150.

Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., & Politylo, B. C. (2012). The effect of performance feedback on teachers’ treatment integrity: A meta-analysis of the single-case literature. School Psychology Review, 41(2), 160–175.

Wright, J. (n.d.). Curriculum-based measurement: A manual for teachers. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/cbaManual.pdf

Kaminski, R. A., Abbott, M., Aguayo, K. B., Latimer, R., & Good, R. H. (2014). The preschool early literacy indicators: Validity and benchmark goals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://tec.sagepub.com/content/34/2/71.full.pdf+html

In this journal entry, the authors reaffirm the essential nature of assessment to the success of response to intervention and introduce readers to the Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI) method of monitoring student progress to ensure better outcomes. Their data suggest a robust relationship between student achievement and the application of PELI throughout early literacy instruction interventions.

Lane, K. L., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Treatment integrity: An essential—but often forgotten—component of school-based interventions. Preventing School Failure, 48(3), 36–43.

Here the authors offer a brief overview of implementation fidelity while again stressing its importance as an indispensable ingredient in the success or failure of instructional practices and programs.

Moyle, M. J., Heilmann, J., & Berman, S. (2013). Assessment of Early Developing phonological awareness skills: A comparison of the preschool individual growth and development indicators and the phonological awareness and literacy screening–pre-k. Early Education and Development 24(5), 668–686. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www4.uwm.edu/chs/faculty_staff/upload/3-1-3-Moyle-et-al.pdf

In this informative piece, the authors overview the importance of progress monitoring in early literacy instruction then proceed to compare two studies into such assessments, one using Preschool Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs) and the other Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening–PreK (PALS-PreK). Findings indicate strengths for both assessment tools, depending on classroom and community circumstances.

Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 48–58. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.scred.k12.mn.us/UserFiles
/Servers/Server_3022443/File/rtl%20center/training%20module
/Using_Progress_Monitoring_Data_to_Improve_Instructional_Decision_Making.pdf

In this article, the authors present an overview of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) as an effective tool for monitoring student progress in the classroom. A look at assessment practices past and present, as well as a number of detailed case studies, are also included.

Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. (Eds.). (2014). Treatment integrity: A foundation for evidence-based practice in applied psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

This book-length examination of the importance of implementation fidelity includes chapters on how to measure and analyze treatment fidelity data, the use of performance feedback as a means by which to improve fidelity, ethical issues related to implementation fidelity, and much more.

National Center on Response to Intervention (2013, January). Brief #1: Common progress monitoring omissions: Planning and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/RTI%20ProgressMonitoringBrief1-Planning%20and%20Practice.pdf

This information brief from the National Center on Response to Intervention covers what may be some of the most commonly overlooked components of the progress monitoring process. Included here are notes on appropriate progress monitoring tools, the importance of a preset schedule for collecting progress monitoring data, and more.

National Center on Response to Intervention (2013, January). Brief #2: Common progress monitoring graph omissions: Missing goal and goal line. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/RTI%20ProgressMonitoringBrief2-Missing%20Goal%20and%20Goal%20Line.pdf

As with the resource above, this info brief from the National Center on Response to Intervention examines some of the overlooked components of progress monitoring. On hand is information about the importance of setting a goal line for student progress, end-of-year benchmarking, and more.

National Center on Response to Intervention (2013, January). Brief #3: Common progress monitoring graph omissions: Making instructional decisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/RTI%20ProgressMonitoringBrief3-Making%20Instructional%20Decisions.pdf

The third in this series from the National Center on Response to Intervention, this info brief examines some of the overlooked components of progress monitoring. On hand is information about the importance of setting a trend line to gauge student performance, notes on evaluating student progress, and details on documenting instructional changes to classroom practices and programs.

National Center on Response to Intervention (2013, January). Brief #4: Common progress monitoring graph omissions: Reporting information to parents. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Retrieved on November 25, 2014, from http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/RTI%20ProgressMonitoringBrief4-Reporting%20Information%20to%20Parents.pdf

This forth info brief from the National Center on Response to Intervention takes a look at some of the overlooked components of progress monitoring. In this installment, readers will find information about the importance of sharing information with the parents of students. Included are notes on the use of graphs to communicate data, some issues to consider when communicating with parents, and a case study example to illustrate the points.

Website

PRIME Implementation
http://www.primeimplementation.com/

Headquartered at the University of Connecticut Neag School of Education, PRIME Implementation is dedicated to creating resources and programs to help prevent lapses in fidelity of implementation in the classroom. Visitors here will find sections housing information on PRIME projects, resources, and a library for further investigation, among much else.