Data Mining -> Staff Factors -> Do Prereferral Intervention Teams Make a Difference

Is there empirical research to validate the use of pre-referral intervention teams (PIT) to reduce special education referrals, achieve gains, or student conduct?

Why is the question important? Pre-referral intervention team (PIT) models have been widely adopted across the United States over the past 15 years. PIT has been used as a common intervention to better serve children with disabilities as well a general education students in an effort to avoid placing students unnecessarily in special education. PIT has been used in conjunction with Response to Intervention (RtI) as a key component in effective data based decision-making. Because of these facts, it is important that we understand the empirical knowledge base supporting PIT as an evidence-based intervention.

See further discussion below.

Source: A Meta-analysis of Pre-referral Intervention Teams: Student and Systemic Outcomes, 2002

Results: The results of the meta-analysis appear striking despite the small number of studies available. Seven of the nine Effect Size (EF) obtained in the study were at or above .90 with the highest being 1.43. Randomized studies had a mean coefficient that was more than twice as large as those that did nonrandomized studies. Furthermore, the mean ES for studies that used university-based teams was more than twice as large as the mean ES for those using field-based teams.

Seven of the coefficients fell within Cohen’s large category and suggested that the PIT has a strong effect on desired outcomes. Although the data suggest PIT is effective, the data was not available to assess the cost- effectiveness of the approach.

Another significant finding was the difference between ES coefficients for university-based (1.32) and field-based (.54) PIT. The decreased EF from the field may result from a lack of treatment integrity. Carter and Sugai (1989) surveyed 34 states mandated PIT initiatives and found that all the state efforts left design and implementation to the local districts. Given our knowledge of treatment integrity, several critical PIT model variables format, assignment of staff, and training are likely implemented less effectively in the field.


Implications:

1. Standardizing the PIT model including the incorporation of methods for monitoring treatment integrity could significantly improve the effectiveness of the intervention.
2. PIT could offer school psychologists a valuable tool to better use their time and to increase effectiveness of consultation, be more effective in the use of limited resources, reduce evaluations and increase time for other services.
3. Additional research is required due to the small number of studies available, studies that measure student achievement, as well as studies to answer the question that arise from the curious fact randomized trial studies included in the meta-analysis produced greater effect size than non-randomized trial studies.

Authors: Matthew K. Burns and Todd Symington

Publisher: Journal of School Psychology

Study Description: The study was designed as a meta-analysis. The study presented quantitative data used to compute effect sizes. Means and standard deviations for both experimental and control groups, or pre- and post-implementation or if enough data were provided to compute the necessary means and standard deviations or if statistical analyses provided enough data to compute an effect size. Of the 72 articles originally reviewed, nine met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Definitions:

1. Pre-referral intervention teams (PIT): Teams of educators (psychologist, teachers, aide, etc.) at a school reviewing data together to proactively problem-solve student academic or behavioral difficulties and to assemble practical, classroom-friendly interventions to address those student problems. Pre-referral teams go other names: Student Study Team (SST) Student Intervention Team, Child Study Team, Teacher Support Team, and Student Success Team
2. Student outcome measures: observations of time on task, student task completion, scores on behavior rating scales, and observations of target behavior
3. Systemic Outcomes: referrals to special education, new placements in special education, percentage of referrals that are diagnosed with a disability, number of students retained in a grade, and an increase in consultative or counseling activity by school psychologists.

Citation: Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 437 – 447, 2002