Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model

Infants & Young Children Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 3–13 Copyright c 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model

Lise Fox, PhD; Judith Carta, PhD; Phillip S. Strain, PhD; Glen Dunlap, PhD; Mary Louise Hemmeter, PhD

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a systematic decision-making process that has gained widespread popularity as a problem-solving framework for organizing hierarchies of evidence-based interventions in the context of ongoing progress monitoring. Initially applied to literacy instruction, RtI is being incorporated into an expanding breadth of domains, including early intervention and the prevention of social-emotional delays and the occurrence of challenging behaviors. In this article, we describe RtI and its relationship to the “Pyramid Model” (L. Fox, G. Dunlap, M. L. Hemmeter, G. Joseph, & P. Strain, 2003) for promoting social, emotional, and behavioral development of young children. The 2 approaches have close parallels and are considered to be highly compatible. The discussion examines this congruence, identifies challenges in need of resolution, and emphasizes the exciting promise offered by the emergence and implementation of the 2 problem- solving and decision-making frameworks. Key words: challenging behavior, intervention, social development

ESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RtI) offers tence and preventing behavior challenges to Ra comprehensive model for the preven- provide guidance to early childhood profes- tion of delays in learning and behavior. Al- sionals and program administrators as they de- though this problem-solving process was ini- velop policies and procedures related to the tially designed for application within kinder- adoption of RtI. garten to 12th-grade programs, there is sub- stantial research that supports the value of the RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION model for application within early childhood programs. This article provides an overview RtI is a systematic decision-making pro- of RtI and discusses the Pyramid Model (Fox, cess designed to allow for early and effec- Dunlap, Hemmeter, Joseph, & Strain, 2003) tive responses to children’s learning and be- for promoting young children’s social compe- havioral difficulties, provide children with a level of instructional intensity matched to their level of need, and then provide a data- based method for evaluating the effective- Author Afﬁliations: Department of Child and Family Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa ness of instructional approaches. RtI relies (Drs Fox and Dunlap); Juniper Gardens Children’s on evidence-based instructional practices and Project, University of Kansas, Kansas City frequent progress monitoring to provide the (Dr Carta); School of Education and Human Development, University of Colorado at Denver, data necessary to make decisions about child Denver (Dr Strain); and Department of Special progress and need for more intensive inter- Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, vention. The process has its roots in ap- Tennessee (Dr Hemmeter). plied behavior analysis, precision teaching, The preparation of this manuscript was supported diagnostic prescriptive teaching, curriculum- by the Technical Assistance Center on Social Emo- tional Intervention for Young Children, Office of Spe- based measurement, prereferral intervention, cial Education Programs, US Department of Education data-measured decision, and team-based prob- (H326B070002). lem solving (Sugai, 2007). It is intended Corresponding Author: Lise Fox, PhD, Department to reduce unnecessary referrals to special of Child and Family Studies University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B Davis Blvd, Tampa, FL 33612 education by ensuring that all children in ([email protected]). the general education setting have access to 3 4INFANTS &YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2010 high-quality curriculum and instruction that 4. Data-based decision making and prob- are provided in a cascade of intensity. Al- lem solving: Instructional decision mak- though the process is not intended to re- ing is based on student performance place special education and its procedural or growth on curricular outcomes and safeguards, it was introduced as special educa- modifications or adaptations that are im- tion policy in the Individuals with Disabilities plemented when insufficient growth is Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, noted. 2004). 5. Implementation fidelity: Specific procedures are used to regularly document Critical features of RtI the level of implementation that oc- RtI is based on the premise that supports curs (e.g., were the modifications of the are provided early, monitored systematically, teaching practices implemented consis- and adjusted intentionally to respond to indi- tently and with a high degree of accu- vidual children’s needs, thus preventing the racy) across features of the model. more traditional practice of waiting for a child to demonstrate failure and then beginning a Research support for RtI process of evaluation and referral to special Although numerous studies have been education. Instead, RtI includes several fea- carried out to validate the specific features of tures that allow programs to more quickly RtI, the evidence base establishing the effec- and efficiently provide the type of support tiveness of various models or approaches to children need to demonstrate successful out- RtI is still emerging (Hughes & Dexter, 2008; comes. These features include the following: Torgesen, 2009; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & 1. Universal screening: The performance Gilbertson, 2007). Available evidence indi- of all students is evaluated systematically cates that use of RtI models can improve the to identify those who are (a) making ade- academic performance of at-risk students, quate progress, (b)atsome risk of failure most notably in the area of early reading if not provided extra assistance, or (c)at skills (e.g., O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005; high risk of failure if not provided spe- Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). cialized supports. Other studies have shown that students who 2. Continuous progress monitoring: Stu- were involved in programs employing RtI dent progress is assessed on a regular and models had reduced rates of special ed- frequent basis in order to identify when ucation referral and/or placement (e.g., inadequate growth trends might indicate Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2007; a need for increasing the level of instruc- Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003; tional support to the student. O’Connor et al., 2005), or performed better 3. Continuum of evidence-based interven- on academic behaviors such as time-on task tions: There are multiple levels, or a “cas- and task completion (Buysse & Peisner- cade,” of interventions derived from sci- Feinberg, 2009; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, entifically validated research that vary in & Swank, 1999). intensity or level of support. Typically, a core curriculum is provided for all stu- Expansion of RtI to social behavior dents, modification of this core is ar- Although most studies of RtI have focused ranged for a targeted group of students on instructional practices in academic areas, who do not show adequate growth in re- some applications of RtI have been reported sponse to the core curriculum, and an in the area of instructional support for so- individualized intensive curriculum is cial behavior, such as School-wide Positive implemented for students who do not Behavior Support (Sugai et al, 2000). RtI mod- show adequate growth in response to els focusing on academic instruction or sup- the modified curriculum. port for social behavior share an emphasis on Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model 5 prevention, and both types of models have childhood special education was developed created tiered approaches that have their as a prevention model with an emphasis on roots in public health (e.g., Simeonnson, the importance of providing intervention and 1994). As Sugai (2001) has described, 3-tier supports to very young children and their models that are implemented in academic sys- families to minimize the impact of disability, tems or behavioral systems are based on the risk, or developmental delay on the child’s following components: developmental trajectory and learning out- 1. Primary tier prevention with all comes (Simeonnson, 1991). Similarly, Head students being exposed to a core cur- Start, Early Head Start, Title I Preschool, and riculum to prevent later problems. state-funded preschool programs have been Regular screening identifies students developed in response to the overwhelming who are unsuccessful in response to in- research on the benefit that can be realized struction with only the core curriculum. when young children attend high-quality early 2. Secondary tier prevention that is tar- education programs or receive intervention geted at at-risk students who need some services to address child and family needs additional instructional support beyond (Guralnick, 1997, 2005; Ramey & Ramey, the core curriculum. 1998). The common focus across current 3. Tertiary tier prevention that is gener- early childhood initiatives is the provision of ally more intensive and individualized early education, intervention, and family sup- and is carried out to remediate academic port that will prevent future academic chal- performance or reduce complications or lenges and developmental delays or disabili- severity of problem behavior. ties (VanDerHeyden & Snyder, 2006). A critical component underlying the 3 tiers In early childhood programs, RtI offers a of instructional support are clear decision process for ensuring the delivery of high- rules based on student performance that de- quality education and care at the universal termine when a student moves up or down level to support the development of all chil- the continuum of tiers. Therefore, in either dren and a dynamic decision-making pro- academic or social systems using an RtI ap- cess for determining how to identify and proach, the focus is on timely screening, on- assist young children in need of additional going progress monitoring, and data-based de- intervention to ensure their developmental cisions so that more effective interventions progress (Coleman et al., 2006; Greenwood can be provided for students whose academic et al., 2008). A tiered intervention model is or social behaviors are not responsive to the an excellent fit with the presumption in early core curriculum and more intensive interven- childhood and early intervention that young tions (Sugai, 2007). Preventing academic fail- children should be educated within natural ure and challenging behaviors is the underly- environments and inclusive settings and that ing premise of RtI so that all students’ learning intervention should be designed to match is maximized. child and family needs. The key component to using such a model is the identification APPLYING RtI IN EARLY EDUCATION of research-based curriculum that can be ar- ranged into a tiered model of intervention, RtI has pragmatic appeal for early educa- and matched to a child’s learning and behav- tion as it is consistent with the conceptual and ioral needs. theoretical framework of early childhood spe- The need for an intervention framework cial education and national recognition of the for addressing young children’s social and critical importance of high-quality early child- behavioral concerns is supported by a sub- hood programs to promote young children’s stantial body of research that illustrates the development (Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel, detrimental effects of social-emotional delay 2006; VanDerHeyden & Snyder, 2006). Early and challenging behavior on children’s school 6INFANTS &YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2010

developing and who have or are at risk for developmental delays or disabilities (Hunter & Hemmeter, 2009). Tier 1: Universal promotion. The first tier of the Pyramid Model involves 2 levels of practices that are critical to promoting the social development of young children. The first level of practices is the provision of nurturing and responsive caregiving relationships to the child. This includes the family or primary care- Figure 1. Pyramid Model. giver and the caregiver or teacher within an early childhood program. In addition to a fo- achievement and developmental outcomes. cus on the relationship to the child, this level In early childhood, the Pyramid Model (Fox of the pyramid also describes the need for de- et al., 2003) has been identified as a tiered in- veloping partnerships with families and col- tervention model that provides guidance for laborative relationships among intervention the design and delivery of evidence-based in- or classroom team members. terventions to promote the social develop- There is ample evidence that the provi- ment of young children and provide more in- sion of a responsive and nurturing relation- tensive intervention for children who have ship is pivotal to a child’s development (Na- social-emotional delays or behavioral chal- tional Research Council, 2001; Shonkoff & lenges. In the following section, we describe Phillips, 2000). In their early years, children the Pyramid Model intervention practices and exist within a web of relationships with par- follow with a description of how this tiered ents, teachers, other caring adults in their intervention model can be used as an RtI lives, and eventually, peers. This web sup- process. plies the context within which healthy social- emotional growth and the capacity to form The Pyramid Model strong positive relationships with adults and intervention practices peers develop. The relationships level of the The Pyramid Model (Fig 1) provides a tiered pyramid model includes practices such as ac- intervention framework of evidence-based in- tively supporting children’s engagement; em- terventions for promoting the social, emo- bedding instruction within children’s routine, tional, and behavioral development of young planned, and play activities; responding to children (Fox et al., 2003; Hemmeter, Os- children’s conversations; promoting the com- trosky, & Fox, 2006). The model describes 3 municative attempts of children with lan- tiers of intervention practice: universal pro- guage delays and disabilities; and providing motion for all children; secondary preven- encouragement to promote skill learning and tions to address the intervention needs for development. children at risk of social-emotional delays; The second level of universal promotion and tertiary interventions needed for chil- is the provision of supportive environments. dren with persistent challenges. The Pyra- Within home and community settings, this mid Model was initially described as an level of the pyramid refers to the provision intervention framework for 2- to 5-year- of predictable and supportive environments old children within early childhood settings. and family interactions that will promote the However, newer iterations of the model child’s social and emotional development. provide guidance for the implementation Universal practices for children with or at risk of the framework with infants, toddlers, for delays or disabilities include receiving in- and preschoolers and include interventions struction and support within inclusive envi- needed to support children who are typically ronments that offer the rich social context Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model 7 that is essential to the development of social velopment of targeted social and emotional skills and peer relationships. skills. Families of infants and young toddlers In early care and education programs, this might need guidance and support for help- level of the pyramid refers to the design of ing the very young child regulate emotions or classrooms and programs that meet the stan- stress and understand the emotions of others. dards of high-quality early education. This in- Tier 3: Tertiary interventions. When chil- cludes the implementation of a curriculum dren have persistent challenging behavior that fosters all areas of child development, the that is not responsive to interventions at the use of developmentally and culturally appro- previous levels, comprehensive interventions priate and effective teaching approaches, the are developed to resolve problem behavior design of safe physical environments that pro- and support the development of new skills. At mote active learning and appropriate behav- this level of the Pyramid Model, positive be- ior, the provision of positive and explicit guid- havior support (PBS) is used to develop and ance to children on rules and expectations, implement a plan of intensive, individualized and the design of schedules and activities that intervention. PBS provides an approach to maximize child engagement and learning. At addressing problem behavior that is individ- this level of the pyramid, families who receive ually designed, can be applied within all natu- home visiting or early intervention services ral environments by the child’s everyday care- might be provided with information and sup- givers, and is focused on supporting the child port on establishing predictable routines; im- in developing new skills (Dunlap & Fox, 2009; plementing specialized healthcare and treat- Lucyshyn, Dunlap, & Albin, 2002). ment procedures; teaching social, emotional, The process begins with convening the and other skills within play and routine activi- team that will develop and implement the ties; promoting language and communication child’s support plan. At the center of the team development; and fostering the development is the family and child’s teacher or other pri- of play and social interaction skills. mary caregivers. The PBS process begins with Tier 2: Secondary prevention. The sec- functional assessment to gain a better under- ondary or prevention level of the Pyramid in- standing of the factors that are related to the cludes the provision of explicit instruction child’s challenging behavior. Functional as- in social skills and emotional regulation. In sessment ends with the development of hy- early childhood programs, all young children potheses about the functions of the child’s will require adult guidance and instruction to challenging behavior by the team. These hy- learn how to express their emotions appropri- potheses are used to develop a behavior sup- ately, play cooperatively with peers, and use port plan. The behavior support plan includes social problem-solving strategies. However, prevention strategies to address the triggers of for some children it will be necessary to pro- challenging behavior; replacement skills that vide more systematic and focused instruction are alternatives to the challenging behavior; to teach them social-emotional skills. Chil- and strategies that ensure challenging behav- dren might need more focused instruction ior is not reinforced or maintained. The behav- on skills such as identifying and expressing ior support plan is designed to address home, emotions; self-regulation; social problem solv- community, and classroom routines where ing; initiating and maintaining interactions; challenging behavior is occurring. In this pro- cooperative responding; strategies for han- cess, the team also considers supports to the dling disappointment and anger; and making family and strategies to address broader eco- friends (Denham et al., 2003; Joseph & Strain, logical factors that affect the family and their 2003; Strain & Joseph, 2006). Families in early support of the child. intervention programs might need guidance The Pyramid Model has been widely dis- and coaching from their early intervention seminated by 2 federally funded research provider on how to promote their child’s de- and training centers (i.e., Center on the 8INFANTS &YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2010

Social Emotional Foundations for Early These assumptions are as follows: Learning [www.vanderbilt.edu/csefel] and 1. Tier 3 interventions are not synony- the Technical Assistance Center on Social mous with special education services: Emotional Interventions for Young Children The Pyramid Model was designed for im- [www.challengingbehavior.org]). In the last plementation by early educators within several years, faculty members from these all child care, preschool, home visiting, centers have been involved in assisting states early intervention, Head Start, and early and programs with program-wide adoption of childhood special education programs. the Pyramid Model (Fox & Hemmeter, 2009; The framework was not designed as a Hemmeter, Fox, Jack, Broyles, & Doubet, path to special education services and 2007). In addition, tools have been developed a child receiving services through spe- to support the implementation of the Pyramid cial education might be served at any Model, including an implementation fidelity of the intervention tiers. For example, a tool to assess a teacher’s implementation of child enrolled in early intervention ser- these practices, implementation materials vices might not need anything beyond to support teachers in using the practices, tier 1 interventions to ensure healthy and the identification of the professional social-emotional development while an- development approaches needed to support other child in early intervention might teachers in achieving fidelity (Hemmeter, have social/behavioral concerns. Fox, & Snyder, 2008). 2. Inclusive social settings are the context Program-wide adoption of the Pyramid for intervention: The focus of the Pyra- Model brings the Pyramid Model into a sys- mid Model is to foster social-emotional tematic, problem-solving process that allows development. This requires a rich so- for the identification of children who are in cial milieu as the context of intervention need of more focused or intensive interven- and instruction. Thus, the model is de- tion and the use of data to monitor child signed for implementation within natu- progress and outcomes. Thus, program-wide ral environments, interactions with the adoption of the Pyramid Model offers a vi- child’s natural caregivers and peers, and able demonstration of the implementation of classroom settings that offer opportuni- an RtI process for young children’s social and ties for interactions with socially compe- behavioral development. In the following sec- tent peers. Interventions do not involve tion, we discuss how the Pyramid Model, pull out from those settings; rather, they through program-wide adoption, is used as an are dependent on a rich social context RtI to promote the social and behavioral de- where the number of opportunities to velopment of young children. learn and practice social skills can be op- timized. The Pyramid Model as an RtI 3. Pyramid model tiers have additive in- The Pyramid Model offers the continuum tervention value: Each tier of interven- of evidence-based practices to promote social tion builds upon the previous tier. Tier development and address challenging behav- 2 and 3 interventions are reliant on the ior that is a critical element of RtI. Program- provision of practices in the lower tiers wide adoption of the Pyramid Model brings to promote optimal child outcomes. the processes and procedures needed for the 4. Instructional precision and dosage in- RtI problem-solving process. Before describ- creases as you move up the Pyramid ing how the Pyramid Model can be used as tiers: The intervention practices and foci an RtI, it is important to iterate some key as- in tier 2 and 3 are not uniquely differ- sumptions that are central to Pyramid Model ent teaching targets or approaches than implementation as these assumptions influ- the universal practices used to foster ence how the Pyramid Model is used as an RtI. all children’s social development. The Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model 9

differences between tiers are evident in A central element of the RtI process is the specificity of the instructional tar- the use of universal screening and progress get, the precision of the instructional monitoring data to identify children who approach, the frequency of monitoring are at risk of developmental delays and to children’s responsiveness to interven- ensure that children are progressing in re- tion efforts, and the number of instruc- sponse to instruction. In the adoption of the tional opportunities delivered to chil- Pyramid Model, universal screening is used dren at each level. to identify children who might have social- 5. Efficiency and effectiveness of interven- emotional delays and are in need of more tion is of primary importance: When systematic supports or instruction. Screening children have challenging behavior or tools, such as the Ages and Stages Question- social-emotional risks, it is imperative naires: Social-Emotional (Squires, Bricker, & that intervention is delivered quickly and Twombly, 2002) or a similar instrument, of- effectively. There is ample research evi- fer an efficient mechanism to identify children dence that when children’s challenging who might need further assessment, closer behavior persists, the problems are likely monitoring, or more intensive intervention. to worsen and become compounded In addition to using a universal, standardized by related problems including peer and screening measure to identify children who adult rejection and coercive relation- might need additional support, programs sys- ships (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006; tematically monitor challenging behavior inci- Moreland & Dumas, 2008). Thus, the dences to determine if an individual child or Pyramid Model has been provided to teacher might need more support or need ad- early educators so that practitioners and ditional intervention. programs can provide the most effective The results of universal screening (e.g., intervention needed to immediately sup- Squires et al., 2002) paired with additional port the child and result in desired child data on incidents of challenging behavior will outcomes. Children in need of tier 2 or provide the program with information to iden- tier 3 approaches should have immedi- tify children who might be in need of tier ate access to those interventions. 2 or tier 3 levels of intervention. Children 6. Families are essential partners: The who have social-emotional delays, who strug- interventions involved in the Pyramid gle with meeting developmentally appropri- Model are reliant on the participation of ate social and behavioral expectations, or families. All families are provided with who have chronic but mild forms of problem information on how to promote their behavior should be provided with system- child’s social development. When chil- atic instruction focused on the development dren are in need of tier 2 or 3 inter- of targeted social-emotional skills. Children ventions, families are involved in the whose persistent challenging behaviors inter- provision of systematic intervention by fere with their participation in daily activities providing increased opportunities for or cause harm to themselves or others are chil- the child to learn and practice new dren who are targeted immediately for tier 3 skills in the context of everyday activi- interventions. ties and routines in the home and com- Tier 2 interventions involve the develop- munity. When children have persistent ment of an intervention plan and progress challenges, families and other persons monitoring system for children who need tar- involved with the child form a collabo- geted social-emotional intervention to pre- rative team to develop and implement vent the development of challenging behav- comprehensive interventions and sup- ior or remediate social-emotional delays. The ports that are applied in all of the child’s intervention plan includes identifying the spe- routines and activities. cific social-emotional skill or skills that are 10 INFANTS &YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2010 targeted for intervention; specifying the indi- feature of the TPOT is that it can be used as vidualized instructional approach or prompt- an implementation fidelity measure to assess ing system that will be used; ensuring that if the universal tier of practices is in place and sufficient instructional and practice opportu- delivered to the classroom as a group. How- nities will be delivered to the child; and devel- ever, when an intervention is delivered to an oping an efficient method for collecting mean- individual child, there must be a measure to ingful data on the child’s responsiveness to determine if interventions at Tiers 2 and 3 intervention. are delivered with intended precision and in- Tier 3 intervention involves the implemen- tensity. This type of implementation fidelity tation of an assessment-based behavior sup- requires that a simple data collection mech- port plan to address the environmental trig- anism be developed to track the delivery of gers of challenging behavior, provide instruc- instruction or intervention at tiers 2 and 3 as tion of communication and social skills that well as the child’s progress in responding to serve as replacement to challenging behavior, the intervention. and to ensure that new skills are being re- The adoption of the Pyramid Model as an inforced and problem behavior is not being RtI within an early childhood program re- maintained by events or interactions with oth- quires an infrastructure of systems and sup- ers. The behavior support plan is facilitated by ports to ensure that practitioners can imple- a behavior specialist or mental health consul- ment the model with fidelity and that the tant (or another professional with expertise model becomes fully integrated into the pro- in behavioral interventions) who convenes a gram (Fox & Hemmeter, 2009; Hemmeter team (including the family and teacher) that et al., 2006). Infrastructure features that sup- works together to conduct a functional assess- port the implementation of an RtI include ment and design the behavior support plan. (1) the development of clear procedures for In addition, an easy-to-use progress monitor- screening, progress monitoring, and the de- ing chart is developed to track the respon- livery of more intensive tiers of intervention siveness of the child to the behavior support to children; (2) the development of strategies plan. This typically takes the form of a data and systems for family involvement within collection system that is used every few days each tier; (3) professional development and and provides information on the child’s use ongoing support to teachers for implementa- of the targeted replacement skill or prompt- tion fidelity; (4) access to expertise in the de- ing level needed to support the use of the sign and implementation of tier 2 and tier 3 skill and data on the severity or frequency interventions; and (5) procedures for efficient of the child’s engagement in the challeng- and meaningful data collection and data-based ing behavior targeted for reduction. Tier 3 decision making. intervention also includes the development of a procedural fidelity checklist that is used TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE AND to ensure that all components of the behav- OPTIMAL IMPLEMENTATION OF RtI ior support plan are being implemented as intended. Although RtI is clearly a promising model A critical element for RtI is implementa- for prevention and data-based problem solv- tion fidelity. The Teaching Pyramid Observa- ing, and although the Pyramid Model ad- tion Tool (TPOT) has been developed to as- dresses the promotion of healthy social- sess the teacher’s capacity to deliver the tiered emotional development and the prevention model of intervention practices (Hemmeter of challenging behavior in a manner that is et al., 2008). It is used as a professional devel- highly compatible with RtI, there are issues in opment tool to identify the teaching practices need of further development and research in that are in place and areas of focus for training, order for the approaches to be implemented coaching, and implementation. An important easily and effectively in the full array of early Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model 11 childhood programs. The following section some very useful and encouraging examples addresses these issues. of large-scale (program-wide) implementation A first concern involves the status of (Fox, Jack, & Broyles, 2005; Hemmeter & Fox, evidence-based practices that can be im- 2009; Hemmeter, et al., 2007), but the need re- plemented with confidence to prevent or mains for more focused examinations to help remediate challenging behaviors. The effec- refine the model’s components and scale-up tiveness of the Pyramid Model and RtI for capabilities. social-emotional behaviors is dependent upon Finally, it is important to look at approaches the demonstrated efficacy and efficiency of to social-emotional development in the over- the strategies used at each tier of the hier- all context of strategies for enhancing intel- archy. At this point, there is considerable re- lectual and academic development and readi- search available documenting the effects of in- ness for school (kindergarten) for all children. tervention practices at tier 2 and tier 3 of the In some respects, the application of RtI mod- model (e.g., Dunlap & Fox, 2009; Hemmeter els to academic (eg, literacy and numeracy) et al., 2006; Strain & Schwartz, 2009). How- concerns has been studied more extensively ever, there is much less research information than RtI applications to social, emotional, and with which to establish the preventive effects behavioral development. Ultimately, however, of tier 1 (primary prevention) strategies. The the approaches need to be integrated and con- variables identified as essential tier 1 strate- sidered as a comprehensive, interconnecting gies, related to relationships and environmen- model addressing all aspects of optimal devel- tal arrangements, are derived from consensus opment of young children. Attainment of this documents and compelling indirect research goal will require a clear focus on the design of findings (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Bodrova & inclusive programs with a full appreciation for Leong, 1998; Cox, 2005; Howes & Hamilton, the needs of a diverse population of children, 1992; Howes, Phillips, & Whitebrook, 1992; including children with multiple risk factors Howes & Smith, 1995; Kontos, 1999; National and a range of disabilities. Research Council, 2001; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2000; Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987; Summary Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995), but there RtI provides a useful, problem-solving pro- is very little rigorous research that has directly cess that is highly compatible with the goals tested the effects of these variables in promot- and priorities of early childhood education ing healthy social-emotional development and and early intervention. The Pyramid Model preventing the occurrence of challenging be- (Fox et al., 2003) is a multitiered model of pre- haviors. Such research will be extremely valu- vention and intervention for healthy social- able in determining the parameters of tier 1 emotional development and the prevention strategies that are most efficient and effective. of challenging behaviors. In this article, we Research is also needed to evaluate fac- have attempted to describe the close relation- tors involved in facilitating implementation ship between RtI and the Pyramid Model and of the model in early childhood service pro- to illustrate how the Pyramid Model can be grams (cf., Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, viewed as a constructive application of RtI & Wallace, 2005). In particular, development in the context of social, emotional, and be- of the model will benefit greatly from evalu- havioral functioning. A major point of this ation, correlational, and case study investiga- discussion has been to emphasize the excit- tions focused on systems variables (eg, admin- ing promise of these approaches as we seek istrative practices, policies, personnel prepa- to improve the capacity of early childhood ration, and funding formulae) that contribute programs for preventing the serious conse- to fidelity and sustainability of the data col- quences associated with challenging behav- lection, problem-solving, and procedural as- ior and promoting healthy development for all pects of the approach. At this point, there are young children. 12 INFANTS &YOUNG CHILDREN/JANUARY–MARCH 2010

REFERENCES

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children’s interper- hood settings. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. sonal behaviors and the teacher-child relationship. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior sup- Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934–946. port (pp.177–202). New York: Springer. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1998). Development of Fox, L., Jack, S., & Broyles, L. (2005). Program-wide dramatic play in young children and its effects on positive behavior support: Supporting young chil- self-regulation: The Vygotskian approach. Journal dren’s social-emotional development and address- of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 19, 115– ing challenging behavior. Tampa: University of 124. South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Bollman, K. A., Silberglitt, B., & Gibbons, K. A. (2007). Institute. The St. Croix River education district model: Incor- Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Baggett, K., Buzhardt, porating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered J., Walker, D., & Terry, B. (2008). Best practices problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In in integrating progress monitoring and response-to- S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden intervention concepts into early childhood systems. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The In A. Thomas, J. Grimes, & J. Gruba (Eds.), Best science and practice of assessment and interven- practices in school psychology V (pp. 535–548). tion (pp. 319–330). New York: Springer. Washington, DC: National Association of School Buysse, V., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2009). Recognition Psychology. and response: Findings from the first implemen- Guralnick, M. J. (1997). The effectiveness of early inter- tation study [on-line]. Retrieved October 25, 2009, vention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. from http://randr.fpg.unc.edu/sites/randr.fpg.unc. Guralnick, M. J. (2005). An overview of the develop- edu/files/KeyFindingsHandout.pdf mental systems approach to early intervention. In M. Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. (2006). Recogni- J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental systems ap- tion and response: An early intervening system for proach to early intervention (pp. 1–23). Baltimore: young children at-risk for learning disabilities. Full Paul H. Brookes. report. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2009). The teaching pyra- at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute. mid: A model for the implementation of classroom Cox, D. D. (2005). Evidence-based interventions using practices within a program-wide approach to behav- home-school collaboration. School Psychology Quar- ior support. NHSA Dialogue, 12(2), 133–147. terly, 20(4), 473–497. Hemmeter, M. L., Fox, L., Jack, S., Broyles, L., & Doubet, S. Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, (2007). A program-wide model of positive behavior J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., et al. (2003). support in early childhood settings. Journal of Early Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to so- Intervention, 29, 337–355. cial competence? Child Development, 74, 238– Hemmeter, M. L., Fox, L., & Snyder, P. (2008). The Teach- 256. ing Pyramid Observation Tool research edition. Un- Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression published assessment. and antisocial behavior in youth. In W. Damon, R. Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. (2006). Social M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child and emotional foundations for early learning: A con- psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personal- ceptual model for intervention. School Psychology ity development (6th ed., pp. 719–788). New York: Review, 35, 583–601. Wiley. Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children’s rela- Dunlap, G., & Fox, L. (2009). Positive behavior support tionships with child care teachers: Stability and con- and early intervention. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. cordance with parental attachments. Child Develop- Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive be- ment, 63, 867–878. havior support (pp. 49–72). New York: Springer. Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Whitebrook, M. (1992). Thresh- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & olds of quality: Implications for the social develop- Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A syn- ment of children in center-based child care. Child De- thesis of the literature. Tampa: Florida Mental Health velopment 63, 449–460. Institute, University of South Florida. Howes, C., & Smith, E. (1995). Relations among child care Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G., & Strain, quality, teacher behavior, children’s play activities, P. (2003). The Teaching Pyramid: A model for sup- emotional security, and cognitive activity in child porting social competence and preventing challeng- care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 381– ing behavior in young children. Young Children, 404. 58(4), 48–53. Hughes, C., & Dexter, D. D. (2008). Field studies of RtI Fox, L., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2009). A program-wide programs. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from the RtI model for supporting social emotional development Action Network website: http://www.rtinetwork. and addressing challenging behavior in early child- org/Learn/Research/ar/FieldStudies Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model 13

Hunter, A., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2009). Addressing chal- Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000). From lenging behavior in infants and toddlers. Zero to neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early Three, 29(3), 5–12. childhood development. Washington, DC: National Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Academy Press. of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 1400 et seq. Simeonnson, R. J. (1991). Primary, secondary, and tertiary Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Comprehensive prevention in early intervention. Journal of Early In- evidence-based social emotional curricula for young tervention, 15, 124–134. children: An analysis of efficacious adoption poten- Simeonnson, R. J. (1994). Promoting children’s health, ed- tial. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, ucation, and well being. In R. J. Simeonsson (Ed.), 23(2), 65–76. Risk, resilience, and prevention: Promoting the Kontos, S. (1999). Preschool teachers’ talk, roles, and ac- well-being of all children (pp. 3–12). Baltimore: Paul tivity settings during free play. Early Childhood Re- H. Brookes. search Quarterly, 14(3), 363–383. Squires, J., Bricker, D., & Twombly, E. (2002). Ages Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, H. and Stages Questionnaires: Social-emotional user’s (1999). High versus low implementation of instruc- guide. Baltimore: Paul Brookes tional support teams: A case for maintaining program Strain, P. S., & Joseph, G. E. (2006). You’ve got to have fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170– friends: Promoting friendships for preschool chil- 183. dren. Young Exceptional Children Monograph Se- Lucyshyn, J. M., Dunlap, G., & Albin, R. W. (2002). ries, 8, 57–66. Families and positive behavior support: Address- Strain, P., & Schwartz, I. (2009). Positive behavior sup- ing problem behavior in family contexts. Baltimore: port and early intervention for young children with Paul H. Brookes. autism: Case studies on the efficacy of proactive treat- Marston, D., Muyskens P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). ment of problem behavior. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, Problem-solving model for decision making with G. Sugai, & R. H. Horner (Eds), Handbook of pos- high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experi- itive behavior support (pp. 107–123). New York: ence. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Springer. 18, 187–200. Sugai, G. (2001, June 23,). School climate and discipline: Moreland, A. D., & Dumas, J. E. (2008). Categorical and di- School-wide positive behavior support. Keynote pre- mensional approaches to the measurement of disrup- sentation to and paper for the National Summit on tive behavior in the preschool years: A meta-analysis. Shared Implementation of IDEA, Washington, DC. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1059–1070. Sugai, G. (2007, December). Responsiveness-to- National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Edu- intervention: Lessons learned and to be learned. cating Our Preschoolers. Committee on Early Child- Keynote presentation at and paper for the RTI hood Pedagogy. B. T. Bowman, M. S. Donovan, & M. Summit, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, S. Burns (Eds). Commission on Behavioral and Social DC. Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, Academy Press. T. J., Nelson, C. M., et al. (2000). Applying positive be- O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers havior support and functional assessment in schools. of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131– Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538. 143. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The response to intervention in- Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., et al. (2000). structional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes implementation in Reading First schools. Child De- study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill: Uni- velopment Perspectives, 3, 38–40. versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Snyder, P. (2006). Integrating Graham Child Development Center. frameworks from early childhood intervention and Phillips, D. A., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child- school psychology to accelerate growth for all young care quality and children’s social development. De- children. School Psychology Review, 35, 519–534. velopmental Psychology, 23, 537–544. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M., & Rollins, K. (1995). The A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to first two years of school: Teacher child relation- intervention (RtI) model on identification of children ships and deflections in children’s classroom adjust- for special education. Journal of School Psychology, ment. Developmental and Psychopathology, 7, 295– 45, 225–256. 312. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and Response to intervention as a means of identify- early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109– ing students with reading/learning disabilities. Ex- 120. ceptional Children, 69, 391–409.