Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
This document addresses how CIM meetsWisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Rule:
Introduction:
Quality reading instruction in the primary grades is the single best defense against reading
failure. Effective instruction requires that teachers focus on the relationship between letters and
sounds, how words work, the process of obtaining meaning from print, and practicing for fluency.
Research indicates that teachers should develop students’ comprehension by building linguistic and
conceptual knowledge beginning in the earliest grades and fluency throughout the primary by
providing rich opportunities to read and reread authentic texts (Snow, Burns, & Griffen, 1998 as cited
by Kentucky Department of Education).
Children with reading problems need more focused, more intense, and more individualized
instruction. Schools with greater numbers of at-risk children should have extra resources to provide
the instruction needed to prevent and address reading problems. Whole class teaching, typically fails
to address the needs of the lowest achieving students (Snow, Burns, & Griffen, 1998 as cited by the
Kentucky Department of Education).
What is Intervention?
Generally speaking, an intervention is “the systematic use of a technique, program or practice
designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of pupil need” [Wis. Admin. Code § PI
11.02(6t)]. The SLD rule, however, specifies higher standards for the interventions that must be
implemented before an IEP team can make an SLD eligibility decision. Data collected during two
intensive, scientific research-based or evidence-based interventions (SRBIs) in each area of SLD
concern are required to determine insufficient progress, and the interventions must be completed
2 CIM Fidelity
before the required standardized testing used to determine inadequate classroom achievement is
administered (p. 24, Wisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Rule: A Technical Guide for
Determining the Eligibility of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities)
http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/files/sped/pdf/sld-guide.pdf
The standards for SRBIs used when applying the SLD criteria include:
Scientific research-based or evidence-based (substantial documented scientific evidence of
effectiveness); See Appendix A
Use with individual or small groups; See Appendix B
Focus on single or small number of discrete skills closely aligned to individual learning needs
(consistent with the area of SLD concern)- See figure 1 and Appendix A;
Culturally appropriate- See figure 2;
A substantial number of instructional minutes beyond what is provided to all students- See
figure 1;
Implemented with adequate fidelity- See figure 1 & Appendix C
Applied in a manner highly consistent with its design- See figure 1;
At least 80% of the recommended number of weeks, sessions, minutes- See figure 1
[Wis. Admin. Code §§ PI 11.02 (1), (4e), (6m), (12) and PI 11.36 (6)(f)4.]
Figure 1: Targeted literacy areas and standards addressed within each scientific, researched based intervention
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
Reading Recovery SLD
Areas:
Oral expression
Listening
comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skill
Reading fluency skill
(See Appendix A)
Interactive Writing SLD
Areas:
Oral expression
Listening
comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skill
Reading fluency skill
(See Appendix A)
**Guided Reading Plus SLD
Areas:
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skill
Reading fluency skill
(See Appendix A)
**Writing Aloud SLD Areas:
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skill
Reading fluency skill
(See Appendix A)
Comprehension Focus Group
SLD Areas:
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skill
Reading fluency skill
(See Appendix A)
Intervention Program Standards
30 minutes 5x week
Delivered one-to-one
Student progress is
expected within 20
weeks of use
*assuming
compliance with
accountability
measures
Progress monitoring
must be consistent
with the Reading
Recovery program
design.
Intervention Program Standards
30 minutes
Minimum 4x week
Recommended group
size as a Tier II
intervention is 4-5 and
as a Tier III intervention
is 2-3
Student progress is
expected within 20
weeks of use
*assuming compliance
with accountability
measures
Intervention Program Standards
30 minutes
Minimum 4x week (when
paired with Writing Aloud
intervention both
interventions together need
to total 5x week)
Recommended group size
as a Tier II intervention is
4-5 and as a Tier III
intervention is 2-3
Student progress is
expected within 20 weeks
of use *assuming
compliance with
accountability measures
Intervention Program Standards
30 minutes
Minimum 4x week (when
paired with Writing Aloud
intervention both
interventions together need
to total 5x week)
Recommended group size
as a Tier II intervention is
4-5 and as a Tier III
intervention is 2-3
Student progress is
expected within 20 weeks
of use *assuming
compliance with
Intervention Program Standards
30 minutes
Minimum 4x week for
elementary grades and
minimum 3x week in
secondary grades
Recommended group size
as a Tier II intervention is 4-
5 and as a Tier III
intervention is 2-3
Student progress is
expected within 20 weeks of
use *assuming compliance
with accountability measures
If progress is being made,
4 CIM Fidelity
Intervention team
meetings must occur
weekly and in
keeping with the
program design.
OS by Marie Clay is
used as a pre and
post assessment.
The school MUST
already have a
comprehensive
evidence-based core
reading
program/model in
place for Tier 1 (core
instruction for all
students).
Intervention reading
services must
supplement, not
replace, regular
classroom reading
instruction.
If progress is being
made, but is not
accelerated
(determined by
Intervention Team) a
comprehensive
analysis of data is
conducted, including
observations in
classroom and
intervention learning
settings, to determine a
new course of action.
The new course of
action may include
layering additional
interventions and/or
targeting specific skills
within the current
intervention.
If no progress is being
made, an alternate
intervention may be
considered.
Accountability Measures for
Interactive Writing
Intervention: See
Interventions That Work p.
If progress is being made,
but is not accelerated
(determined by
Intervention Team) a
comprehensive analysis of
data is conducted,
including observations in
classroom and
intervention learning
settings, to determine a
new course of action. The
new course of action may
include layering additional
interventions and/or
targeting specific skills
within the current
intervention.
If no progress is being
made, an alternate
intervention may be
considered.
Accountability Measures for
Guided Reading Plus
Intervention: See Interventions
That Work p. 23
Monitor Progress every 3-4
accountability measures
If progress is being made,
but is not accelerated
(determined by
Intervention Team) a
comprehensive analysis of
data is conducted,
including observations in
classroom and intervention
learning settings, to
determine a new course of
action. The new course of
action may include layering
additional interventions
and/or targeting specific
skills within the current
intervention.
If no progress is being
made, an alternate
intervention may be
considered.
Accountability Measures for
Writing Aloud Intervention: See
Interventions That Work p. 23
Monitor Progress every 3-4
but is not accelerated
(determined by Intervention
Team) a comprehensive
analysis of data is
conducted, including
observations in classroom
and intervention learning
settings, to determine a new
course of action. The new
course of action may include
layering additional
interventions and/or
targeting specific skills within
the current intervention.
If no progress is being
made, an alternate
intervention may be
considered.
Accountability Measures for CFG
Intervention:
Monitor Progress every 3-4 weeks
using:
Anecdotal notes
A cold read running record
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
23
Monitor Progress every 3-4
weeks using:
Anecdotal notes
Writing Samples
A cold read running
record with standardized
book introduction to
determine text reading
level (aim line used to
graph accelerated
progress)
CIM Reading Rubric
CIM Writing Rubric
Other CIM assessments
as deemed appropriate
by Intervention Team
weeks using:
Anecdotal notes
a cold read running record
with standardized book
introduction to determine
text reading level (aim line
used to graph accelerated
progress)
Fluency scale
CIM Comprehension
Checklist
CIM Reading Rubric
CIM Writing Rubric
Other CIM assessments as
deemed appropriate by
Intervention Team
weeks using:
Anecdotal notes
A cold read running record
with standardized book
introduction to determine
text reading level (aim line
used to graph accelerated
progress)
Fluency scale
CIM Comprehension
Checklist
CIM Reading Rubric
CIM Writing Rubric
Other CIM assessments as
deemed appropriate by
Intervention Team
with standardized book
introduction to determine text
reading level (aim line used to
graph accelerated progress)
CIM Reading Rubric
CIM Writing Rubric
Other CIM assessments as
deemed appropriate by
Intervention Team
**Recommended as layered interventions as necessary for students
not making accelerated progress in identified areas of concern.
6 CIM Fidelity
Implementation Standards for all CIM Interventions:
1. ASSESSMENT - The struggling readers participating in CIM intervention services MUST be initially
identified using a universal screener or the assessment chosen by the school/district. Additional
criteria/assessments (e.g., classroom performance data, school level assessments, teacher input)
MUST be used to qualify students. In order to have a standard measure of progress,
interventionists MUST administer a diagnostic assessment at least twice per year to all eligible
primary level students who qualified for the intervention. Baseline assessments MUST be
administered in the fall and post-tests must be administered in the spring. See Appendix D for
Examples of Assessment Types
2. ALIGNMENT TO CORE - The school MUST already have a comprehensive evidence-based core
reading program/model in place for Tier 1 (core instruction for all students). CIM intervention
reading services must supplement, not replace, regular classroom reading instruction. All
identified struggling readers MUST receive the school’s core reading program/strategies as well as
the CIM intervention services; the intervention services for identified students must be over and
above their classroom’s reading instruction time.
3. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER - The interventionist MUST be trained in the CIM interventions. It is
highly recommended that the interventionist attend continuous professional development in the
CIM interventions. The intervention teacher’s daily responsibility must be primarily devoted to the
delivery of intervention instruction to identified struggling readers. Paraprofessionals are not
considered highly qualified teachers for CIM interventions.
4. SCHOOL LEADERSHIP - The building principal must monitor the implementation of the CIM
interventions.
5. INTERVENTION TEAM – It is strongly recommended that schools using the CIM interventions
establish an intervention team (e.g. intervention teacher, principal, classroom teacher, reading
specialist (if possible)). This team may by the RtI team as well. The parent/guardian of the
identified student should also be considered part of the intervention team as it pertains to his/her
child. The role of the intervention team is to:
Collaborate to develop and monitor reading intervention plans for identified students
Coordinate resources (materials and/or personnel) for struggling
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
readers
Meet on a regular basis to:
Review recommendations (based on additional criteria/assessments) to determine
intervention eligibility
Discuss and determine the plan for exiting individual students from the intervention
6. COLLABORATION TEAM MEETING- Collaborative Intervention Team meeting between classroom
teacher and interventionist to analyze data and, align instructional goals and language (Meeting
should occur every 2-3 weeks and use standard collaboration form)
Using Additional Sources of Data When Considering Inadequate Classroom Achievement
Systematic observation of routine classroom instruction, which is also required by the rule,
provides data about how the student performs in the classroom in the 7Wisconsin’s Specific Learning
Disabilities (SLD) Rule 57 area(s) of concern identified in the referral. The data gathered during
systematic observation about the student’s academic achievement can be compared to other formal
and informal achievement data to establish consistency among various sources of data. It is
important to triangulate data, comparing different types of data to look for consistency or
inconsistency among the results. Other formal and informal data should also be considered as the IEP
team analyzes data to determine whether the referred student demonstrates inadequate classroom
achievement. Comparisons of formal and informal data, standardized achievement test results, and
data from observation help verify that a student’s inadequate classroom achievement is indicative of
the impairment of SLD. Formative and summative assessments linked to grade level standards and
student work samples can be useful for this purpose.
Formal and Informal Sources of Data
Federal and state law require IEP teams conduct a full and individual evaluation to determine
whether a student is a student with a disability eligible to receive special education services. The IEP
8 CIM Fidelity
team must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional,
developmental, and academic information about the student including information provided by the
parent. No 864 Required Data Sources for Evaluation Activities single measure can be used as the sole
criterion for making an eligibility determination [34 CFR § 300.304(b)]. Data collection begins with the
review of existing data by the IEP team and the decision concerning what, if any, additional data are
needed to conduct a full and individual evaluation, to make an eligibility determination and, if
appropriate, to develop an IEP. When considering SLD certain specific data are always required i.e.
scores from a standardized achievement test, data from progress monitoring probes, and systematic
observation data. However, information from other sources is also important and necessary for
considering all three SLD eligibility criteria and need for special education. Reviewing a variety of data
during an IEP team evaluation discussion includes examination of formal assessments as well as
formal and informal data sources about the student’s classroom work and approach to learning.
Some examples of formal and informal data sources include:
Standardized, individually administered, norm referenced tests;
Classroom achievement measures aligned with common core grade level standards;
Classroom assessment data such as criterion referenced tests, quizzes, informal inventories,
rubrics, checklists, and rating scales;
Formative and summative data linked to grade level standards;
Data from instruction such as work samples and products.
Informal and other formal data collection measures will vary by school building, subject, curriculum,
instructional methodology and teacher. The IEP team may record information from formal and
informal sources of data on DPI sample form ER-1, Evaluation Report, an appropriate sample SLD
Eligibility forms ER- 2A, ER-2B or ER-2C, or any other attachment to the evaluation report.
Note: The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OS) by Marie Clay (which includes
running records) received the highest possible ratings for scientific rigor from the National Center on
Response for Intervention. See the NCRTI comparison ratings between the OS, DIBELS, AIMSweb, MAP,
PALS, easyCBM and other commonly used assessments in WI. NCRTI Ratings for
OS:DIBELS:AIMS.pdf150 KB
http://www.rti4success.org/resources/ tools-charts/screening-tools-chart
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
Figure 2: When to begin probes for measuring progress with CIM
The CIM interventions derive from and are tightly aligned to the balanced literacy framework for
teaching literacy acquisition. This model subscribes to the belief system that reading, writing,
speaking and listening share a reciprocal relationship and are acquired through “interactive learning
in social contexts” (Dorn and Jones, 2012) using culturally relevant, authentic texts.
Because the CIM interventions are based on the cognitive apprenticeship theory, assessments that
inform instruction are those that reveal how students use knowledge and skills to read and write.
Therefore, measuring discrete skills in isolation does not provide helpful information. Item
knowledge and skills are necessary but not enough to improve reading and writing proficiency. Again,
knowing letters and sounds and sight words and spelling are only useful inasmuch as the student
actively employs the knowledge and skills through a self-regulated decision making process in the act
of reading and writing. Thus, it is recommended that probes of discrete skills only begin when it is
determined that a child is not making progress in the intervention and that all other RtI components
have failed to set the student on a positive trajectory path. Using probes prematurely encourages
interventionists to shift their focus away from teaching for strategic processing and instead
encourages the interventionist to teach for accumulation of item knowledge. Such a shift in teaching
focus would jeopardize the fidelity of the intervention. If the student does not make progress within
the timelines of the intervention, then a baseline can be established and then probes, which meet WI
law, can be initiated. See below for use of probes.
Method for Determining Insufficient Progress Using Data from Intensive Intervention to Determine Insufficient Progress:
There are basic steps that are part of establishing a data collection process during a Scientific,
Research Based Intervention (SRBI).
1. Establish baseline;
10 CIM Fidelity
2. Begin the intervention and collect weekly or more frequent progress monitoring data using a PM
probe; and
3. Use the baseline and progress monitoring data collected at least weekly to analyze progress.
Note the following exclusionary factors for SLD eligibility (If one or more factors apply, the student is not a student with a disability and is not eligible for special education):
The student does not meet general education expectations primarily because:
Environmental, cultural, or economic factors
Limited English proficiency
Lack of appropriate instruction in oral expression, listening comprehension, written
expression, basic reading skills, or reading comprehension
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
Appendix A: Compliance with the SLD Eligibility Criteria: Instructional practices supported by research
Intervention SLD Areas
Components of Intervention
Research Base
Reading Recovery
*Foundational skills including Phonological
Awareness and Phonics (Basic
Reading/Decoding)
Phonemic Awareness-Children study letters and connect them to sounds through working with magnetic letters and building words. Teachers demonstrate how to take words apart by segmenting them into sounds and how to make new words by adding, deleting, or substituting letters. In the process of writing a message: Children analyze phonemes in words and represent them with letters, they say words slowly, segmenting them into the sounds they hear, they check written words by blending phonemes together. As children orally read and reread texts, the teacher demonstrate ways to use phonemic awareness and letter-sound relationships to monitor reading accuracy and to solve new words. Phonics- Using books that provide opportunities to apply principles they are learning, the teacher shows children how to: identify and work with syllables in spoken words, identify and work with onsets and rimes in spoken syllables, identify and work with individual phonemes in spoken words as strategies for solving unfamiliar words. In writing, children learn to record the sounds they hear in words and notice the sequence of sounds.
Pinnell 1997; Pinnell,G.S.& McCarrier A.,1994What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading Recovery,2013Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading Recovery, 2008Shanahan & Barr, 1995Heibert, 1994Wasilk & Slavin, 1993Herman & Stringfield, 1997
*Fluency Fluency-Teach for fluent reading on carefully selected continuous texts that are not too difficult. Provide many opportunities for oral reading. Provide opportunities for multiple readings of familiar texts.
Pinnell 1997; Pinnell,G.S.& McCarrier A.,1994What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading Recovery,2013Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading Recovery, 2008Shanahan & Barr, 1995Heibert, 1994Wasilk & Slavin, 1993
12 CIM Fidelity
Herman & Stringfield, 1997
*Comprehension and Vocabulary
Development
Comprehension- Introduce texts by activating prior knowledge about the story and building experiences needed to enhance understanding, build connections during and after reading to support understanding, have meaningful conversations about the text, hold the child accountable for meaning during oral reading through such prompts as “Did that make sense?” examine records of oral reading behavior for evidence of meaning-making and adjust teaching objectives accordingly, teach for comprehension when children are writing as well as when they are reading. The reciprocal nature of the two processes will be mutually supportive. Vocabulary- use magnetic letters to explore how words work, teach the child how to use analogies or spelling patterns to write new words, teach for word solving of new and unfamiliar words when children are writing as well as when they are reading.
Pinnell 1997; Pinnell,G.S.& McCarrier A.,1994What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading Recovery,2013Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading Recovery, 2008Shanahan & Barr, 1995Heibert, 1994Wasilk & Slavin, 1993Herman & Stringfield, 1997
*WritingThe reciprocal nature of the reading and writing processes will support children’s word-learning strategies. Reading Recovery daily lessons include a child’s writing of a self-generated story.
Pinnell 1997; Pinnell,G.S.& McCarrier A.,1994What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading Recovery,2013Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading Recovery, 2008Shanahan & Barr, 1995Heibert, 1994Wasilk & Slavin, 1993Herman & Stringfield, 1997
Intervention SLD Areas
Components of Intervention
Research Base
Guided Reading Plus
*Foundational skills including Phonological
Awareness and Phonics (Basic
Reading/Decoding)
Phonological Awareness Phonics Instruction
Guided ReadingWriting About Reading One to
One Conferences
NRP 2000b; Davis, 2000; Goswami &
East, 2000;Paris, Lipson, & Wixson.
2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R.
B. & Unrau, N.1994;Leslie, L. & Allen, L.
1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R., 2005
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
*Fluency
Guided Reading Independent Reading One to
One Conferences
Begeny et al., 2009; Musti-Rao,
Hawkins, & Barkley, 2009; Guthrie, J. T.
Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K,1999;
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.,2000
*Comprehension and Vocabulary
Development
Guided Reading
• Before Reading
• During Reading
• After Reading Independent Reading One to
One Conferences Vocabulary
Instruction
WWC report, Improving Reading
Comprehension K-3: Williamson et al.
2007; Paris, Cross, and Lipson, 1984;
Williamson, 1989; Brown et al. 1995;
Reutzel, Smith, and Fawson, 2005;
Schwartz, R.,1988; Williams, J. P. ,
1993
WritingWriting about Reading One to One
Conferences
Bond & Dykstra, 1997; Shanahan &
Lomax, 1986;Graham, S., & Harris, K.
R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986;Tierney R. J.
& Shanahan, T. ,1996
Intervention SLD Areas
Components of Intervention Research Base
Assisted Writing: Interactive Writing
*Foundational Skills including Phonological
and Phonics (Basic Reading/Decoding)
Phonological AwarenessPhonics Instruction
Shared ReadingInteractive Writing (Concepts
of Print) Independent Writing
One to One Conferences
Ukrainetz et al. 2000; Torgesen, 2002;
Badian, 2001; Neuhaus & Swank,
2002;Craig, 2003, 2006;Scammacca et
al, 2007;Paris, Lipson, & Wixson.
2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R.
B. & Unrau, N.,1994;Leslie, L. & Allen,
14 CIM Fidelity
L. ,1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R,2005
*Fluency
Shared ReadingInteractive Writing (Concepts
of Print) Independent WritingOne to One
Conferences
Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Guthrie, J. T.
Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox,
K,1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.2000
*Comprehension and Vocabulary
Interactive Shared Reading Read-Aloud
Vocabulary InstructionInteractive Writing
(Concepts of Print) Independent Writing
One to One Conferences
Schickedanz and McGee, 2010;
Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechal, 1997;
Hargrave & Senechal, 2000, Whitehurst
& Zevenbergen, 2003;
*Writing Interactive Writing (Concepts of Print) Independent Writing
Craig, 2003, 2006; Scammacca et. al, 2007;Graham, S., & Harris, K. R.
One to One Conferences 2005;Langer, J. 1986;Tierney R. J. & Shanahan, T. ,1996;Shanahan, T.,2006
Intervention SLD Areas
Components of Intervention
Research Base
Assisted Writing: Writing Aloud
Foundational Skills including Phonological Awareness and Phonics (Basic Reading/Decoding)
Phonological Awareness Phonics InstructionShared ReadingWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent Writing
One to One Conferences
Paris, Lipson, & Wixson. 2002;Morrow, L. M. , 1992;Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N.,1994;Leslie, L. & Allen, L. ,1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R,2005
Fluency
Shared ReadingRead AloudWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent WritingOne to One Conferences
Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K, 1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.,2000
*Comprehension and VocabularyShared ReadingRead AloudVocabulary InstructionWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent Writing
Schmoker, 2006; Kuhrt & Farris, 1990; Dole et. al., 1996; Miller, 2002; Wilhelm, 2002
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity CriteriaOne to One Conferences
*WritingWriting Aloud (Writing Process) Independent WritingOne to One Conferences
Pritchard and Ronald L. Honeycutt, 2005; Cunningham, Cunninghap, & Allington, 2002; Wood, 2002; Ruddell, 1976; Moll, 2004; Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Dyson &Freedman, 2003; Farnan & Dahl, 2003; Hodges, 2003;Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986
Intervention SLD Areas Components of Intervention Research Base
Writing Process Groups in Classroom (Push-In)
Foundational Skills including Phonological Awareness and Phonics (Basic Reading/Decoding)
Phonological Awareness PhonicsWriting Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences
Paris, Lipson, & Wixson. 2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N.1994;Leslie, L. & Allen, L. ,1999;Valencia, S. & Buly, M.R,2005
Fluency Shared ReadingRead AloudWriting Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences
Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K, 1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.2000
*Comprehension and Vocabulary Shared ReadingRead Aloud Vocabulary Instruction Writing Lesson Independent Writing
Williams, J. P. , 1993; Borkowski, J., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. ,1990;Paris, S. G. & Winograd, P. W., 1990
*Writing Writing Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J., 1997;Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986
Intervention SLD Areas
Components of Intervention
Research Base
Comprehension Focus Groups:
Foundational Skills including Phonological Awareness and Phonics (Basic
Strategic reading instruction- taking words apart; using context clues; using affixesOne to
Mahurt, 2005; Fullerton & DeFord, 2000; Bhattacharaya & Ehri, 2004
16 CIM Fidelity
• Genre Studies
• Content Strategy Groups
Reading/Decoding) One ConferencesPenney, 2002;Paris, Lipson, & Wixson. 2002;Morrow, L. M. ,1992;Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N.,1994
*Fluency
Reading Lesson Independent Reading Writing About Reading Writing Process
One to One Conferences
Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker., 2001;Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K., 1999;Guthrie, J. T. Wigfield, A, Metsala, J. & Cox, K,1999;Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A.2000
*Comprehension and Vocabulary
Reading LessonVocabulary InstructionText structure/feature instruction Independent ReadingOne to One Conferences Literature Discussion Groups
NPR, 2000’ Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 1998; Taylor, et. al. 2003; Stahl, 1999; Blachowicz & Fisher, 2005.Ambruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987;Dole, J., Brown, K, & Trathen, W. 1996;Jenkins, J.R., Stein, M. & Wysocki, K. ,1985; Schwartz, R. 1988
*Writing
Writing About Reading Writing Lesson Independent Writing One to One Conferences
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. ,2005;Langer, J. 1986;Tierney R. J. & Shanahan, T. ,1996
*Highly targeted focus
.
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
18 CIM Fidelity
Appendix B: Group Sizes for Selected and Intensive Interventions in the Comprehensive Intervention Model
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity Criteria
20 CIM Fidelity
Appendix C: Diagnostic Decision Making Process for CIM
Type of Assessment How the Assessment is Used Examples
Comprehensive Intervention Model (CIM) Fidelity CriteriaUniversal Screener Universal Screeners are measures that are administered once at the beginning of a
school year. The purpose is to quickly determine whether students in a classroom may be at-risk for reading difficulties. Universal screeners should be short, quickly administered (between 5-10 minutes per child) and should have high predictive validity with word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. For example, a quality universal screener would be administered to all children in a classroom with the purpose of determining which students might be at risk. After determining those students who might be at risk, a more detailed diagnostic measure would be given to those children to determine whether they really were at risk and, if so, to help teachers determine areas of strength and need from which to begin instruction.
Yopp-Singer, San Diego Word List, Slosson, DIBELS,etc.
Diagnostic Assessment Diagnostic Assessments are measures that help teachers understand where to begin instruction with a child. These measures are administered after the universal screener. They are administered to children who were identified as being possibly at risk based on the universal screener.
Informal Reading Inventories, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, MAP, etc.
Progress Monitoring Assessment Progress Monitoring Measures are administered more frequently. These measures should be quick and easy to administer. They should provide guidance to the teacher about how the student is progressing toward an identified goal. They should also provide information to the teacher about possible changes that need to be made to instruction in order to reach the identified goal.
running records, miscue analysis, etc.
Outcome Measure Outcome Measures are administered at the end of the school year to assess whether the instruction provided was sufficient to help all students achieve grade-level reading standards. These assessments are typically group administered by the classroom teacher.
Stanford 10, ITBS, etc.
Appendix D: Examples of Assessment Types and their Use in CIM