Petscher, Yaacov; Zumeta Edmonds, Rebecca; Arden, Sarah; Weingarten, Zachary (2020). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED603459
Reviewed: December 2021
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSweb: Concepts and Applications |
Data-Based Individualization (DBI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
7.35 |
8.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT4): Math Computation Subtest |
Data-Based Individualization (DBI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample: grade 1, 2;
|
18.50 |
18.51 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The data-based individualization intervention was fielded in eight elementary and two middle schools in a public school district outside Tacoma, Washington. The impact study focused on a subset of these elementary schools and did not include the middle schools.
In the district where the intervention was tested, 9% of students were English learners (ELs), 72% of students received free or reduced-price lunch, and 12.3% were students with disabilities.
Data-Based Individualization (DBI) is an iterative and systematic intervention that "uses student data to determine when and how to adapt, intensify, and individualize interventions for students ." It generally includes the following steps: use of a validated intervention, monitoring of student progress, collection of additional diagnostic data, and continuation with intervention until needed or adaptations until no longer needed. In this study, educators and staff received monthly professional development and coaching sessions on the five-step DBI process, student progress monitoring and diagnostic data, mathematics interventions, adapting instruction, and planning effective student intervention meetings.
The comparison group did not participate in implementation activities during the 2015–16 school year and delivered mathematics instruction and intervention using business-as-usual procedures. They received the intervention after the first year.
During DBI Phase I, intervention teams began receiving implementation training and support. At the beginning of the school year, i3 project staff conducted site-based needs assessments to determine schools’ baseline implementation of components of DBI and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) in mathematics and to determine specific support needs. Project staff used this information to plan and conduct monthly professional development and coaching sessions with teams from all Cohort 1 schools. During DBI Phase II, project staff provided ongoing implementation and professional development throughout the school year. School teams also received refresher trainings on the DBI process, use of validated intervention platforms, intensification strategies, and the role of diagnostic data within the DBI process. Additional monthly professional development activities also included a combination of school staff presentations on their progress toward implementing DBI with students and review of select DBI content. Project staff used a gradual release strategy to shift ownership of the DBI process to school staff in preparation for moving to DBI Phase III (Follow-Up) (page 10-11).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube