#4: Processes for Monitoring Student Progress & Intervention Fidelity
In this month’s Advanced Tiers series, this post aims to provide an actionable framework to guide school teams in structuring their monitoring processes for advanced tiers. An effective, sustainable advanced tiers system of interventions is heavily dependent on alignment and ease of implementation. The tools, schedules, and assigned personnel go a long way in determining the success of the intervention system. The best tools allow for easy entry, the ability to monitor individual and aggregated group data, and integrate fidelity tracking alongside student outcomes. Even with a good tracking tool, it’s important to remember that progress monitoring also requires dedicated people to monitor the process and review the outcomes. There should be clear, documented answers to the questions: who’s monitoring this intervention and how frequently will monitoring and review occur? Most schools find success with an initial bi-weekly monitoring schedule and then make data-informed adjustments if needed.
Key Monitoring Areas and Questions
A comprehensive progress monitoring process relies on four key areas: level of use, intervention effectiveness, student performance, and intervention fidelity. Each area answers a key question critical to the overall effectiveness of your tiered system of supports.
- Level of use examines the overall reach of tiered supports by calculating the percentage of the school population enrolled in an intervention, ensuring that Tier 2 serves roughly 10–15% and Tier 3 serves 1–5% without overwhelming systems.
Key question: What percent of the school population is enrolled in the intervention?
- Intervention effectiveness evaluates student response rates to determine if the intervention program itself works as intended—aiming for at least 70–80% positive student response—while analyzing patterns to identify for whom the intervention is not working. In examining whose needs are not being met, exploring commonalities or trends that exist will help problem-solve and fill potential gaps in the system.
Key questions: What percent of students enrolled in the intervention are responding positively? For whom is the intervention not working?
- Student performance tracks individual goal attainment on a daily or weekly basis, utilizing visual trend lines generated ahead of meetings by intervention coordinators to drive efficient decisions about maintaining, modifying, or fading supports.
Key questions: What percentage of students are meeting their daily or weekly individual goals? How can we visualize this data to efficiently make decisions regarding fading, maintaining, or modifying support?
- Intervention fidelity verifies whether the intervention was actually delivered, executed correctly, provided in sufficient dosage, and implemented consistently over time. Strong fidelity tools serve to answer these questions. These four areas ensure that data guide both individual student adjustments and broader, systems-level refinements.
Key questions and core fidelity elements:
- Delivery: Was the intervention delivered?
- Accuracy: Was it delivered correctly and according to protocol?
- Dosage: Was the frequency and duration sufficient (e.g., 4 days/week for 20 minutes)?
- Consistency: Was it implemented consistently over time? (e.g., were there barriers, holiday breaks, extended absences, etc.?)
Improving our Systems and Outcomes
By analyzing aggregated student outcomes alongside fidelity scores, school teams can determine whether low intervention response rates indicate an isolated student need or a widespread system breakdown. If data shows low intervention effectiveness despite high implementation fidelity, teams should consider systems modifications such as adjusting group sizes, increasing intervention frequency, or refining Tier 1 core instruction and entry criteria. Conversely, if implementation fidelity is inconsistent, systems support should focus on staff training, resource allocation, and scheduling adjustments. Ultimately, evaluating data as an Advanced Tiers team prevents schools from prematurely abandoning effective programs and ensures that multi-tiered supports remain scalable, sustainable, and equitable across the entire system.
References
Center on PBIS. (2016). Tier 2 systems readiness guide. University of Oregon. https://www.pbis.org/resource/tier-2-systems-readiness-guide
Center on PBIS. (2025). Tier 2 School-Level Systems Guide. Center on PBIS, University of Oregon. www.pbis.org
Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports at the American Institutes for Research. (2020). Tier 2 identification procedures. https://mtss4success.org/essential-components/screening
American Institutes for Research. (2020). Tier 2 identification procedures. Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports. https://mtss4success.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Guidance_Tier2%20_Identification_508.docx
Hannigan, T. P., & Hannigan, A. M. (2020). Evidence indicators in each tier of the PBIS Champion Model. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 5(S1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v5iS1.2111
Kittelman, A., Nese, R. N. T., McIntosh, K., & Hoselton, R. (2022). Optimal timing for launching installation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 systems in School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 24(4), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300721996084
Nese, R. N. T., McIntosh, K., Hoselton, R., & Kittelman, A. (2023). Examining teaming and Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices within a School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 25(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007211051090