This is a chapter excerpt from Guilford Publications.

Reading Intervention in the Primary Grades: A Common-Sense Guide to RTI, by Heidi Anne E. Mesmer, Eric Mesmer, and Jennifer Jones.
Copyright © 2014. Purchase this book now: www.guilford.com/p/mesmer2

Chapter 3

the primary Grades Intervention

Lesson plan

s
es
Pr
rd
lfo
GuidinG Questions
ui
G
• What are helpful ways to evaluate programs, strategies, or content
for a research base?
e
Th

• How is the developmental continuum key in planning

effective interventions?
• How should diagnostic assessments be used to inform
14

intervention instruction?
20

• What is the framework for effectively and efficiently

setting intervention goals and timelines and for monitoring
students’ progress?
©

• What lesson planning guidelines are important for successful

ht

interventions in the primary grades?

ig

• How do instructional leaders (administrators and teachers alike)

evaluate the effectiveness of instructional interventions?
yr
op

Across many years of both clinical work and RTI work we have learned how to
help teachers and schools structure RTI and deliver interventions successfully. In
C

this chapter we provide a structure for planning Tier 2 reading interventions in

the primary grades. As described in Chapter 1, reading interventions are qualita­
tively different from small-group instruction in the classroom. We like to say, “Do
something different!” Remember, the student is in intervention because business-
as-usual instruction did not work. Interventions should not be extra, improvised,
“ad hoc” instruction offered by random people. They should be planned, but the
planning should not overwhelm a school or teachers (see the text box What Is an
Intervention?). Our approach supports effective instructional intervention with
51
 WhaT Is an InTERvEnTIon?

An intervention is:
• Based on universal screening and diagnostic data.
• A specific research-based strategy or technique targeted to improve a particular
reading skill.
• A strategy or technique that requires planning and progress monitoring.
• Typically delivered in a small-group or one-on-one format.

Interventions are specific instructional strategies or techniques targeted to improve

a particular aspect of reading. Intervention needs are determined by using universal

s
screening and diagnostic data. Universal screening data identify students who are not

es
performing as they should in reading, and diagnostic data can further pinpoint specific

Pr
literacy needs. Intervention instruction should use strategies that are research-based
and are used to meet the needs of specific students.
Interventions are offered to students in addition to core classroom reading instruc­

rd
tion; they are most effective when delivered in small-group or one-on-one settings. Inter­

lfo
vention requires intentional planning and the monitoring of students’ progress in order to
inform instruction. Examples of intervention programs might include the Wilson Reading

ui
for students with decoding needs or Read Naturally for students with fluency needs.
Chapters 4–6 in this text provide intervention instructional guidelines and strategies for
G
students with specific needs in the primary grades.
e

An intervention is not:
Th

• A person.
• An accommodation.
14

• A modification.
• A program.
20

• A piece of computer software.

In many cases, schools mistakenly view interventions as people. For example, Ms.
©

Rodriguez may be referred to as “the intervention” for a particular group of students

because she is the classroom teacher who delivers small-group instruction to students
ht

who need mostly fluency work. In fact, Ms. Rodriguez is the teacher who delivers the
ig

intervention. She is not the intervention itself.

yr

Accommodations are changes made in instruction or assessment. For example,

a student’s needs might be accommodated with additional time to complete reading
op

assignments or by being allowed to respond to questions orally, rather than in written

form. With accommodations, students are expected to perform at the same level of
C

all their peers with these slight changes. As you can see, an accommodation is not a
specific strategy, does not involve additional instruction, and is not focused on a specific
reading skill. Students receiving interventions may also receive accommodations.
Modifications are also changes made to instruction or assessment, but modifica­
tions lower the performance expectation or standard. For example, students with modi­
fications may receive shortened vocabulary lists or fewer choices on multiple-choice
tests. Again, modifications are not instructional strategies or techniques matching data
to students’ reading needs in research-based ways.

52
 Intervention Lesson plan 53

reasonable investments of time and pragmatic routines and practices. Schools and
teachers can undertake reading interventions without burying themselves in paper­
work and planning. The process that we share in this chapter is supported by some
simple forms for organizing notes, plans, and progress monitoring (see Figure 3.1).
In Chapters 4–6 we illustrate how these forms are used within the context of dif­
ferent types of lessons (i.e., letter-sounds, decoding, fluency). Our approach unifies
RTI procedures, provides schools with a common language for working together,
and helps to avoid the instructional fragmentation that can happen when multiple
educators are working with struggling students.

s
The lesson planning structure offered in this chapter is also repeated in the

es
content-specific chapters (4–6) that follow. Our lesson plan scheme contains the

Pr
following seven elements:

rd
1. A research basis.
2. Attention to developmental reading.

lfo
3. Diagnostic assessments.
4.
5.
Determining the focus of the intervention.
ui
G
Careful instructional planning and activities.
6. Goal setting and progress monitoring.
e

7. A plan for evaluation.

Th

The goal of this chapter is to set the stage for the skill-specific chapters that
14

follow. We have found that many books supply the theoretical tenets of RTI or
offer intervention ideas. Few books put it all together and show the steps for plan­
20

ning RTI. Each of the skill-specific chapters in this book is structured around the
seven essential ingredients in our lesson plan scheme.
©
ht

essential elements of an intervention Lesson

ig
yr

Research Basis
op

According to IDEIA (United States Congress, 2004, Sec. 614.b.6.B), an RTI model
is grounded in research-based interventions—that is, interventions for which there
C

is verifiable evidence of effectiveness. At a very basic level, when we say that an

intervention is research-based, we mean that there is some reliable information
indicating that the intervention will result in students’ learning a specific content.
In other words, the approach has been tried before and proven to be effective.
Someone has used the approach, product, or strategy and collected pretest data
to show that the students did not demonstrate the skill before the research-based
approach but were able to demonstrate the skill after the research-based approach.
In Chapter 2, the text box Using the What Works Clearinghouse to Evaluate the
 C
Student Progress Monitoring Data Separated by Tabs
op
Student Diagnostic Data and Intervention Goals in Plastic Sleeve
yr
ig
ht
©
For each intervention, we suggest that
teachers have an intervention notebook
20
with three sections.

Section 1—Diagnostic Data for each

14
student and intervention goal in a

54
plastic sleeve.
Th
e Section 2—Lessons and Logs.
On facing pages store the 6-week
G plan on the left side and the
intervention log on the right side. This
allows for quick access to both plans
ui
and the log. You can open the
notebook to teach and see plans and
lfo
Intervention 6-Week Plan and Weekly Intervention Log on Facing Pages rd make notes in the log easily.

Section 3—Tabbed Pages for Progress

Monitoring. In the back store each
student’s progress monitoring
Pr
assessments behind individually
tabbed sections.
es
s
fIGuRE 3.1. An interventionist’s notebook.
 Intervention Lesson plan 55

Effectiveness of Intervention Programs (on pp. 36–37) describes one tool used to
ensure a research base for programs and practices.
Instructional interventions must be research-based for two reasons. The first
and most obvious reason is that research-based interventions help students. They
make a difference, and by using them teachers and schools will not be wasting time
with unproven strategies. The second reason that interventions should be research-
based is that federal regulations require that a student’s response to intervention
using research-based instruction is the litmus test for determining a learning dis­
ability. If the approach, strategy, or program is not research-based, then a student

s
might not respond to it because it is not effective and not because he/she has a

es
learning disability.

Pr
Effective schools and teachers use high-quality practices and strategies to
deliver instructional intervention. The strategies that we describe in this book are

rd
all research-based, and many are common strategies that teachers know and love.
Fortunately, there are many new and exciting strategies that are also research-based

lfo
that can help students. We use several resources to find strong, engaging strategies.

ui
First, we like to use articles from practitioner journals such as The Reading Teacher
and Teaching Exceptional Children. These pieces tend to have a solid research
G
backing and step-by-step instructions. We also like ReadWriteThink (www.read­
e

writethink.org), a website sponsored by the International Reading Association and

Th

the National Council of Teachers of English, with links to hundreds of reading

lessons, many based on Reading Teacher articles. This website is searchable by
topic and each is linked to an in-depth article. We also like the Florida Center for
14

Reading Research at Florida State University website, which also has links to solid,
20

fun activities for students (www.fcrr.org). In addition, we have found many strong
activities at the Center on Instruction (www.centeroninstruction.org).
©

Developmental Continuum
ht
ig

An understanding of reading development is absolutely essential to the delivery of

high-quality reading interventions. Students go through the same general sequence
yr

of developmental steps but not at the same rate. The key to delivering intervention
op

is identifying a student’s position on the developmental continuum, at which there

is trouble, and then matching instruction to need. A common problem in schools
C

is that students come into classrooms at a point on the developmental continuum

that is below their peers. These students are not at the same place as their peers, but
they are developing nonetheless. Often these students are characterized as being
disabled or having an innate problem when they simply have not been taught what
they now need (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996). In fact, as mentioned earlier,
students with reading difficulties, whether “learning disabled” or not, will need
research-based reading instruction that is fundamentally similar in nature (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000).
56 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

The developmental continuum that we present in Figure 3.2 shows a set of

developmental milestones that research has established to be associated with read­
ing success. There is nothing innovative about this continuum. It is supported by
the DIBELS continuum, which is informed by a rich literature on literacy stages
that is empirically supported by many studies (Chall, 1967; Ehri, 2005; National
Early Literacy Panel Report, 2008; National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). Although there is not perfect agreement,
generally the research has converged around a set of milestones or benchmarks that
appear to be strongly associated with reading success. The milestones that we iden­

s
tify on our continuum represent only essential behaviors that signify progression in

es
learning to read. Teachers will achieve much, much more with their students than

Pr
the skills we have listed on this continuum. These benchmarks simply form a loose
set of criteria that schools can use to gauge if a student is behind or not.

rd
lfo
Half Letter
Names:
ui
G
End of Pre K

Initial
e

Phoneme
Th

Awareness:
Mid-K
14

All
Letter-Sounds:
20

End of K
©

Segment
Phonemes:
Mid-1st
ht
ig

Decode
Short Vowels:
yr

Mid-1st
op

200 H.F.
C

Words:
End-1st

Fluency
50 WCPM:
End of 1st

fIGuRE 3.2. Developmental continuum.

 Intervention Lesson plan 57

We list seven milestones across PreK through first grade. (Students in second
grade who are struggling usually have not met milestones in the first-grade year.)
At the beginning of the continuum in PreK is letter naming. As described in depth
in Chapter 4, the ability to rapidly name letters is strongly associated with later
reading achievement (Adams, 1990; Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Chall, 1967; Vellu­
tino & Scanlon, 1987).
At the middle of kindergarten students should demonstrate awareness of ini­
tial phonemes (e.g., the /b/ sound heard prior to the vowel in bat), because this
level of phoneme awareness supports their attainment of the alphabetic principle

s
and helps them apply letter-sounds. The alphabetic principle is the awareness that

es
letters represent speech sounds. Students should be able to identify the beginning

Pr
sounds in pictures or orally spoken words. Without this ability, letter-sound and
decoding instruction will not move forward. By the end of kindergarten students

rd
should demonstrate letter-sound knowledge for all letters, both upper- and low­
ercase. In order to enter first grade ready to read, accurate, automatic knowledge

lfo
of letter-sounds is required. In Figure 3.2 we shaded the shapes for initial pho­

ui
neme awareness and letter-sound knowledge to reflect that initial sound awareness
builds capacity for letter-sound knowledge. These two skills are linked.
G
By the middle of first grade students should be able to easily decode an
e

unknown short-vowel CVC (consonant–vowel–consonant) word. This skill is

Th

often measured with pseudoword instruments. Pseudoword assessments present

nonsense words containing common letter patterns to students, such as zat, in order
to assess their ability to read unknown words. Pseudoword assessments ensure
14

that students have not holistically memorized a word (see the text box Discussion
20

about Advantages and Disadvantages of Pseudowords in Chapter 5, p. 000). The

ability to blend sounds together into a word shows that the student has integrated
©

and applied letter-sound knowledge and can access the English alphabetic system.
Some students struggle with this skill, typically because they do not have aware­
ht

ness of phonemes or speech sounds. The ability to segment phonemes—that is,

ig

to break an oral word into its sounds (cat = /c/ + /a/ + /t/)—is a prerequisite to
decoding words. Therefore, this milestone is shown before decoding. We find that
yr

phonemic segmentation practice builds capacity for decoding, and if a student is

op

struggling to blend sounds together, practicing this skill will help.

By the end of first grade, two additional milestones should be reached: (1)
C

fluent reading at a rate of 50 words per minute and (2) accurate recognition of
about 200 high-frequency words. As with phonemic segmentation and decoding,
these two skills are linked with sight-word knowledge-building capacity for flu­
ent reading. Once first graders can decode and have a requisite store of high-
frequency words, they are ready to move toward faster and more fluent reading.
We once worked with a school that did such a good job with code skills in the first
grade that they wanted to keep going and going and going. At midyear we had to
help them shift their instructional focus toward fluent reading. Throughout the
58 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

first-grade year, students are usually learning lists of high-frequency words, such
as the Dolch list, that support their emerging fluency.
This instructional continuum essentially forms the framework for reading
interventions provided in this book. As indicated by the graphic, certain skills are
linked and build capacity for others (e.g., initial phoneme awareness–letter-sound,
phonemic segmentation–decoding, high-frequency words–fluency).
Table 3.1 translates the continuum into a set of measurable reading behaviors
that schools and teachers can check at different grades and different times in the
year. This table is used to follow up with students who have not passed the literacy

s
screening. The best way to use the table is to identify the grade level of the student

es
and the time of the year. If a student has not passed the literacy screener, then this

Pr
table provides guidance for administering additional diagnostic assessments. In
general, we think of the beginning of the year as the first 2 months of school, mid­

rd
year as January, and spring as early April, when teachers can still have an impact
on students. The skills are listed from the easiest at the top to the most difficult

lfo
at the bottom. When working with an older struggling reader, perhaps in second

ui
grade, it may be necessary to work up the table to find the appropriate focus for
intervention instruction (see Stahl, Kuhn, & Pickle, 1999). For instance, Cal, a sec­
G
ond grader with whom we worked, could not read 50 words correctly per minute
e

at the beginning of second grade. In fact, he read less than 25, so we moved up the
Th

table to check his ability to decode CVC words and found that he was unable to
do so. We started our intervention instruction with Cal at decoding, but had we
not probed earlier skills listed on the chart, we might have inappropriately started
14

with fluency instruction.

20

We believe that teachers who have internalized knowledge of a simple devel­

opmental continuum and receive guidance in how to evaluate where their students
©

are located on that continuum can be more flexible in how they view students.
Using the continuum, teachers can identify struggling students and appropriately
ht

differentiate reading instruction in the classroom, as well as design appropriate

ig

instructional interventions for them. Teachers who locate students on a develop­

mental continuum can identify specific needs that will move their students to the
yr

next position on the continuum. When teachers do not have this fundamental
op

understanding, they default to grade-level expectations or grade-level standards

as their continuum. Their focus then falls to the ways that a student is not like the
C

others in a grade, and this perspective does not point to the type of instruction
that a student needs. When teachers use a developmental continuum, they act as
problem solvers as opposed to simply problem identifiers.

Diagnostic assessments
As described earlier, the literacy screening assessment may or may not provide spe­
cific diagnostic information that can inform instruction. Diagnostic assessments,
 Intervention Lesson plan 59

TaBlE 3.1. Developmental Continuum with specific Reading Behaviors

Grade Skill Standard indicating potential risk a
Middle of PreK Letter naming Fewer than 7 letter-names—upper- or lowercase
(approx. one-quarter)

Spring of PreK Letter-naming Fewer than 10 letter-names—upper- or lowercase

(half)

Beginning of K Letter-names Fewer than 10 letter names—upper- or lowercase

(half)

s
Middle of K Letter-sounds Fewer than 13 letter-sounds—both upper- and

es
lowercase
Initial phoneme If below letter-sound standards, check to see if the

Pr
awarenessb student can identify the initial sound of spoken
word presented orally or in a picture.

rd
Spring of K Letter-sounds Fewer than 20 letter-sounds—both upper- and
lowercase

lfo
Initial phoneme awareness If below letter-sound standards, check to see if the
student can identify the initial sound of spoken

ui
word presented orally or in a picture.
G
Beginning of grade 1 Letter-sounds Fewer than 23 letter-sounds—both upper- and
lowercase
e

Initial phoneme awareness

Th

If below letter-sound standards, check to see if the

student can identify the initial sound of spoken
word presented orally or in a picture.
14

Middle of grade 1 Decoding Unable to consistently read unknown CVC words

with short vowels (e.g., vut, heg, dop or bag, hit,
20

tell).
Phonemic segmentingc Unable to consistently break oral words into each of
their sounds.
©

Fluency—reading rate Reads less than 25 words per minute in a first-

grade-level passage.
ht

High-frequency wordsd Knows fewer than half of the 200 most frequently
ig

occurring words.
yr

Spring of grade 1 Fluency—reading rate Reads less than 50 words per minute.
op

Beginning of grade 2 Fluency—reading rate Reads less than 50 words per minute.
C

a Ifthe student is below this level, intervention may be needed.

b Initialphoneme awareness builds capacity for a student to learn letter-sounds. If a student doesn’t know letter-sounds,
initial phoneme awareness should be checked.
c Phonemic segmentation supports full alphabetic decoding. It builds capacity for a student to sound out a CVC word. If

a student cannot consistently sound out CVC, then phonemic segmentation should be checked.
d Knowledge of high-frequency words supports fluent reading in grade 1. Students who are below reading rate standards

may need additional support with high-frequency words.

60 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

in contrast, are thorough measures that guide instruction by providing detailed

information about exactly what content a student needs to learn. Sometimes
screening measures do provide diagnostic information and sometimes they do not.
For instance, there are several measures of letter-naming fluency that present a
series of randomly interspersed upper- and lowercase letters. The student is asked
to name as many letters has he/she can in 1 minute. Then this number of letters is
compared to established standards. If a student doesn’t meet the standard, how­
ever, a teacher would not know exactly which letters the student does not know.
For this reason, a diagnostic letter-name or letter-sound measure would need to be

s
administered for at-risk students. Such a measure would contain a complete listing

es
of the letters in both upper- and lowercase forms, informing teachers about specific

Pr
letters the student does and does not know. However, a screener that includes all
26 letters would provide the kind of diagnostic information that indicates which

rd
letters require specific focus. In contrast, a fluency measure, which indicates that
a student is reading inefficiently, may or may not indicate the precise content on

lfo
which a student needs to work on.

ui
States across the country use many different literacy screening assessments
to identify at-risk children in PreK through second grade. Many of these assess­
G
ments tap the very skills that we highlight on the developmental continuum (e.g.,
e

letter naming, letter-sound knowledge, initial phoneme awareness). In the primary

Th

grades, screening measures and diagnostic measures sometimes intersect. Many

primary grade skills, such as decoding, letter-sound knowledge, and fluency, are
very discrete and can be easily measured. For instance, the PALS measure in Vir­
14

ginia uses a complete letter-sound measure as part of the screening, so a teacher

20

using this measure would have both screening and diagnostic information all in
one measure (Invernizzi, Meier, Swank, & Juel, 1997).
©

In some states and schools districts the screening measures are not diagnosti­
cally transparent. For example, some school systems use computer programs such
ht

as STAR Early Reading to identify at-risk students—which, as discussed in Chap­

ig

ter 2, are criterion-referenced assessments. These programs typically identify the

students’ levels of skill, but not the specific needs that would inform the content
yr

of an intervention. The developmental continuum that we provide would help to

op

inform teachers who are not sure how to follow up if a student is identified as at
risk. In PreK, for instance, a teacher would want to follow up with a letter-naming
C

measure. A kindergarten teacher at the beginning of the year would want to use a
letter-naming or letter-sound measure. Table 3.2 lists a series of easily accessible
assessments for the various skills listed (e.g., letter naming, fluency, decoding). In
addition, in each of the chapters we provide a skill-specific diagnostic template
for recording diagnostic information in a way that guides planning. These forms
look different depending on the skill being assessed, and teachers will have to use
their judgment and a careful analysis of their state’s literacy screening measure
to decide whether or not additional diagnostic measures should be administered.
 Intervention Lesson plan 61

TaBlE 3.2. Diagnostic assessments for literacy skills

Area Assessment name Website
Phonological awareness
Initial phonemes Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy https://dibels.uoregon.edu
Skills—Initial Sound Fluency

Initial phonemes Abecedarian Reading Assessment www.balancedreading.com/

assessment/abecedarian.pdf

Phonemic segmentation Yopp–Singer Test of Phonemic www.balancedreading.com/

Segmentation assessment/freeassessments.html

s
(see Figure 5.3 for example)

es
Phonemic segmentation Abecedarian Reading Assessment www.balancedreading.com/

Pr
assessment/abecedarian.pdf

Phonemic segmentation Easy CBM—Phoneme Segmenting https://easycbm.com

rd
lfo
Letters
Letter naming and letter- Abecedarian Reading Assessment www.balancedreading.com/
sounds
ui assessment/abecedarian.pdf
G
Letter naming and letter- Easy CBM—Letter Names and Letter https://easycbm.com
sounds Sounds
e

Letter naming and letter- Really Great Reading—Predecoding www.rgrco.com

Th

sounds Survey
14

Decoding
Decoding real words Abecedarian Reading Assessment www.balancedreading.com/
20

assessment/abecedarian.pdf

Decoding pseudowords Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy https://dibels.uoregon.edu

©

Skills—Nonsense Word Subtest

ht

Decoding real words and Really Great Reading—Diagnostic www.rgrco.com (see Chapter 5
pseudowords Decoding Survey for a sample and more details)
ig
yr

High-frequency sight words

Automatic word Easy CBM—Word Reading Fluency https://easycbm.com
op

recognition
C

Dolch words Dolch Word Kit (by frequency) https://theschoolbell.com

(see Chapter 6 for more details)

Fluency
Reading rate Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy https://dibels.uoregon.edu
Skills—Oral Reading Fluency Passages

Reading rate Easy CBM—Passage Reading Fluency https://easycbm.com

62 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

In Chapters 4–6 we specify the type of information that is needed to conduct a

literacy intervention in a given area and then leave it to teachers to obtain that
information from the assessment sources available to them.

Determining the Instructional focus of an Intervention

As described in Chapter 2, schools using RTI conduct regular grade-level meetings
prior to instructional interventions to discuss the details involved in implementa­
tion. These conversations usually address the intervention focus and the goal. In

s
addition, the progress monitoring measure to be used is also identified. Such pro­

es
fessional conversations are important for intervention success.

Pr
The team begins by identifying the focus of the intervention. Table 3.3 lists the
forms included in this book that can be used by the team. First is the Intervention

rd
TaBlE 3.3. forms and Their Purposes

lfo
Form When used?/frequency Purpose
Intervention Preplanning ui
This form is used during a grade-level or team
G
Goal-Setting Once per intervention meeting in which teachers are preplanning
Sheet (Form 3.1) interventions. Teachers record the following
e

information about the intervention:

• Focus
Th

• Goal
• Progress monitoring measure
• Days and times the intervention meets
14

• Diagnostic data for each student (baseline)

20

Six-Week Preplanning Teachers use this form to record their tentative

Intervention- During intervention plans for 6 weeks of instruction. The form
Planning Sheet (once per intervention) provides support for establishing the scope
©

(Form 3.2) (content of instruction) and sequence (order)

of instruction. Activities, notes, and progress
monitoring days are also planned. The form serves
ht

as a guide for intervention instruction that can be

ig

revised in response to students’ progress.

yr

Intervention During intervention This form is a “log” or record of what actually

Log (Form 3.3) During evaluation happened during the intervention on a weekly
op

Once per week basis. It provides space to record the attendance

for each student. Teachers also record specific
notes about each student as needed. These notes
C

are useful in evaluating the intervention and

revising it.

Fidelity During intervention The purpose of this form is to check the fidelity of
Checklist During evaluation the intervention or the degree to which the lesson
(Forms 4.2, 5.3, Occasionally as needed activities will fulfill the goal or purpose of the
6.3) intervention. Fidelity checklists often contain a
list of “essential” activities that should be taking
place during the intervention. This form is used
to evaluate an intervention to make sure that it is
“true” to its intended goal.
 Intervention Lesson plan 63

Goal-Setting Sheet (Form 3.1), which includes space for individual student data as
well as for recording the intervention focus, goal, and timeline.1 The intervention
focus is the content of the intervention lesson—in other words, what will be taught
(e.g., letter-sounds, decoding, and fluency). Sometimes there will be a little addi­
tional instruction during the intervention that supports focus. For instance, when
teaching letter-sounds, many times readers will need some initial phoneme aware­
ness practice with pictures to build their sensitivity to sounds. Although this is not
directly teaching letter-sounds, it supports letter-sound learning. The intervention
goal is the measurable objective of the intervention, the skill that will be captured

s
by the progress monitoring measures.

es
In the Goal Setting and Progress Monitoring section of this chapter we discuss

Pr
how to quantify progress monitoring goals in more detail. However, at the plan­
ning stage, when teachers are formulating an intervention, they also must specify

rd
their progress monitoring assessment. As described in Chapter 2, there are two
types of progress monitoring: mastery monitoring (MM) and general outcome

lfo
monitoring (GOM). The MM directly reflects the content of the intervention and

ui
sometimes helps to clarify exactly what should be taking placed during the inter­
vention. Jamie, an experienced educator, explained:
G
e

“When I go to a meeting, I want to know what I am supposed to do. I don’t

Th

want to sit around having long discussions about the intervention. I just want
to cut to the chase. I have a whole classroom program that I am trying to
deliver, and I don’t have time to waste. We have the diagnostic data that tell
14

us where the gaps are and we know that we want to fill those gaps. So if a kid
20

is not able to decode, we go straight to a progress monitoring measure. How

are we going to assess that content? That clarifies everything else that we are
©

going to do. Then all the other stuff is planned, like how long the intervention
will be, and who will do it.”
ht
ig

Also, teachers may need to identify a GOM that represents a skill to which they
would eventually hope the intervention would transfer. In the primary grades
yr

GOMs differ based on the student’s stage of development. A GOM for a decoding
op

intervention would likely look different than a GOM for a fluency intervention. In
Chapters 4–6 we specifically describe the GOMs that might accompany different
C

types of interventions.
Once the progress monitoring measure has been established, the next question
is timing and scheduling. Decisions about time and personnel are essential. Who is
delivering the intervention? What amount of time will be dedicated to the interven­
tion? The answers to these questions impact both the quality of the intervention
and the quantity of time devoted to it. We suggest making a record of who the

1 All reproducible forms are found at the ends of the respective chapters.
64 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

interventionist will be and which days and times he/she will meet with a student.
In addition, we suggest that a decision be made about how many hours per week
the intervention will take place and how much time will be spent in the interven­
tion each meeting day.
As with any other skills, students will improve in direct proportion to the
amount of time they spend doing or practicing something. We recommend that
interventions occur five times per week for 30 minutes per meeting. When this
is not feasible, we believe that interventions should last at least 1.5 hours, three
times per week. The amount of time dedicated to intervention should ultimately

s
match the intervention goal and the amount of time that it will take for students to

es
learn a content. We have often found that letter naming is a very teachable content

Pr
that does not usually require daily treatment. However, letter-sound instruction
can be more difficult, especially for students who do not have an awareness of

rd
initial phonemes in words. When phoneme awareness is deficient, intervention
lessons must include both phonemic awareness activities and letter-sound instruc­

lfo
tion. Usually this type of intervention requires daily intervention time. Similarly,

ui
deeply entrenched fluency issues require more practice and time. In the subsequent
chapters we address the amount of improvement that one might expect over a
G
particular period of time with different literacy skills. Ultimately, the amount of
e

time dedicated to intervention should be sufficient for consistent instruction to

Th

take place and should match the difficulty of the focus (more difficult content will
require more time). In the planning section, we provide more insight about time
and its distribution within the lesson.
14

Personnel decisions about interventions relate to quality. We do not recommend

20

that volunteers be responsible for intervention instruction. However, with Tier 2

interventions, we have found that well-trained and well-supervised paraprofession­
©

als with good attendance records can often be very successful in delivering interven­
tions. Paraprofessionals are most successful with a very well-specified intervention.
ht

In one elementary school, we remember Shirley, who was very successful in deliver­
ig

ing interventions designed by the reading specialist. Kathy, the reading specialist,
used a blend of professional resource materials and her own knowledge to preplan
yr

an intervention and then checked in with Shirley every 2 to 3 weeks. Shirley enjoyed
op

delivering intervention because she felt that she was really contributing to the suc­
cess of the children and was often bored and overwhelmed when assigned to do
C

clerical work and copying. The planning provided by the reading specialist proved
to be a “win–win” situation for everyone involved, most importantly the students.
Usually a reading specialist, Title I reading teacher, or classroom teacher is
a better choice for delivering interventions. The person delivering the interven­
tion must want to teach the intervention, be skilled in the content focus, and able
to consistently deliver the intervention. In our opinion, teachers do need to feel
some level of control over the interventions they teach. They should be able to give
input about the interventions that best connect with their gifts, and they should
 Intervention Lesson plan 65

feel motivated to do the intervention. Intervention should be a positive, energetic

instructional time for both students and teachers. Ultimately, the person deliver­
ing the intervention should possess the skills and motivation to deliver it. We also
recommend placing the students with the greatest needs with the professionals in
the building who have the most extensive training and experience to meet those
needs. For example, students with extreme phonological awareness weaknesses
would likely be best placed with the reading specialist. Students with language
difficulties might be best placed with the English language learner (ELL) teacher
or speech pathologist.

s
Schools should consider the following questions as they establish a progress

es
monitoring measure, the intervention goal, timeline, and personnel:

Pr
• Is the person delivering the intervention willing to do so? (motivated)

rd
• Does the person delivering the intervention possess the skills necessary to
effectively deliver the intervention? (competent)

lfo
• If a paraprofessional is to deliver the instructional intervention, will the
person be supervised and supported?
ui
||Who will provide plans for the paraprofessional to execute with students?
G
• If a paraprofessional is to deliver the instructional intervention, does the
e

person have a good attendance record?

Th

• Is the amount of time devoted to the intervention reasonable for the content
being taught?
14

Planning for an Intervention

20

We suggest that teachers who are providing interventions plan in larger chunks
©

and then reevaluate their plans every 3 weeks. Form 3.2 provides a template for
planning the content, activities, and progress monitoring measures for up to 6
ht

weeks, or about one-half of the time of a typical intervention period. Because

ig

interventions are so focused and consistent, teachers find extended planning useful
from time to time. Each box on the form represents one week of intervention plan­
yr

ning. The Six-Week Intervention-Planning Sheet provides a scope and sequence

op

for the intervention. The sections of the Six-Week Intervention-Planning Sheet are
illustrated in each of the content chapters (e.g., Chapter 6, Letters, and Chapter
C

7, Decoding). The Six-Week Intervention-Planning Sheet has space to record the

focus content, which is what will be taught (e.g., letter-sound knowledge, decod­
ing short vowels, fluency reading rate, and expression). Each week’s content is
sequenced or put into a specific order over the 6 weeks of the intervention (e.g.,
B, M, R, S—first week). In addition, the instructional activities for each week are
also recorded. Instructional activities are the planned actions that teachers choose
to teach the content and accomplish the goals of the intervention (e.g., word or
picture sorting, repeated oral reading, sound boxes).
66 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

Writing Plans
We do suggest that brief, written plans be used during instructional interventions.
When we have introduced the planning approach using the Six-Week Intervention-
Planning Sheet to teachers, they have been initially skeptical. Often it seems easier
to simply sit down and plan for a week, but we find that this does not work for
two reasons. First, teachers tell us that investing about an hour of time up front on
planning actually saves time in the long run. We did a little experiment and asked
teachers to do the planning their way and then to do it our way. Teachers reported

s
that going back to the plan each week, in a sense, was like reinventing the wheel.

es
Carol explained:

Pr
“I actually ended up spending about 30 minutes per week on intervention plan­
ning when I did it my way and I started to dread it. It was like, ‘What are we

rd
going to do this week?’ But when I sat down and did it for 6 weeks, I would

lfo
basically review my plans each week for about 10 minutes and make changes
based on data that I had on the students. I found it much easier to refine estab­
lished plans than to do new plans each week.” ui
G
The second reason that we believe long-term planning is more effective is that
e

it leads to more consistent and coherent instructional intervention. When teach­

Th

ers plan for 6 weeks, the content is delivered in a more sensible fashion. Carol
explained:
14
20

“So when I plan for 6 weeks, I know where I am going this week and then I
know where I want to be in 3 weeks. It keeps me focused on the goal. Yeah, I
do change the plans if the kids are not responding, but it keeps urgency in my
©

teaching and direction.”

ht

With intervention, the unit of instruction is usually the period of time in which the
ig

intervention will take place. Planning for the end goal and pacing the content are
yr

very important.
op

Different contents will lead to different types of pacing. With code-level skills,
such as letter-sound instruction, decoding, or phonemic awareness, there are many
C

resources to guide the scope and the sequencing. Sequencing of letter-sounds, for
instance, can be done using Words Their Way (Bear, Templeton, Invernizzi, &
Johnston, 2012), or the Neuhaus Reading Readiness materials. Phonemic aware­
ness activities can be structured based on the type of phonemes (e.g., vowels, con­
tinuant consonants, stop consonants) and the number of phonemes in a word (e.g.,
at vs. trap).
With instructional intervention, teachers must be systematic in their presenta­
tion because the approaches that worked in the classroom did not work with these
 Intervention Lesson plan 67

students. Attention to introducing the content from the easiest to the hardest or
from the least complex to the most complex is particularly important with Tier 2
interventions. In addition, we suggest specifying the number of minutes dedicated
to each activity. This step helps teachers move the lesson along and ensures that
the lesson focus is receiving the requisite amount of time. For example, if the focus
of the lesson is increasing fluency and reading rate, then the majority of the lesson,
or 70% of the time, should be geared toward fluency instruction. In one fluency
lesson, we found that the teacher was spending about 15–17 minutes on high-
frequency word practice (50–56% of a 30-minute lesson) and the rest of the time

s
on repeated reading and oral reading. In actuality, to keep the focus of the lesson

es
on the target skill—fluency—only about 7–10 minutes of time should have been

Pr
dedicated to high-frequency word practice. The majority of the lesson time, about
20 minutes, should have focused on fluency practice. Although these distinctions

rd
seem nitpicky, the cumulative effects of time are compounded across 6 weeks. Stu­
dents get better at what they practice the most, and so the intervention time should

lfo
be dedicated to the focus of the intervention.

ui
G
Selecting Instructional Activities
e

The selection of activities is also very important to the intervention. We like to

Th

tell teachers, “Establish your content, be research-based, and then HAVE FUN!”
Keep activities simple and repetitive, but not boring. The content of the interven­
tion should be kept very consistent from day to day, but the lessons should be brisk
14

and engaging, with different student-friendly activities. Students should receive

20

multiple opportunities to engage in active learning/participation within each inter­

vention session. In a letter intervention, this means that the students might focus
©

on the same five letters and/or letter-sounds but engage in three different activities
with those letter-sounds. From the perspective of the child, a variety of activities
ht

makes the lesson interesting, and from the perspective of the teacher the vari­
ig

ety provides different opportunities to reach the student. The litmus test for an
instructional activity is the degree to which it meets the goal of the intervention
yr

and improves the students’ performance on the MM progress monitoring mea­

op

sure. When in doubt about an activity, ask yourself, “Would I expect this activity
to result in a student’s performing better on my progress monitoring measure?”
C

There are several activities that we suggest interventionists steer clear of or

minimize. One nonproductive activity involves cutting, pasting, and coloring. Such
activities do not contribute to improvement on a progress monitoring measure, and
they eat away at precious instructional time. Sometimes we have observed teach­
ers doing picture or word sorts or letter matching activities with word cards or
pictures in which students are asked to cut up cards, color pictures, or paste cards
during the intervention. This is not a wise use of intervention time, especially with
young learners. Cutting cards and pasting them could easily consume 20 minutes
68 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

of a 30-minute intervention session and do not sufficiently improve performance

in the target area. As much as possible, we suggest that teachers avoid paperwork
during interventions. Students love manipulatives and even writing activities can
incorporate dry erase boards and colorful markers. In addition, we suggest that
teachers minimize choral responding or whole-group instruction.
The intervention activities should allow children to handle their own manipu­
latives and to have as many practice opportunities as possible. We suggest that
teachers evaluate their activities by also thinking about the number of practice
opportunities that each child is given. For instance, we love games, but some for­

s
mats do not provide a lot of practice opportunities per child. A Follow-the-Path­

es
type game might give each student only one opportunity for response every four

Pr
turns. A bingo game, on the other hand, might offer an opportunity for response
each time. Follow-the-path games can be altered so that individual children must

rd
respond during everyone else’s turn. Last, avoid nonspecific feedback or vague
language. The intervention time is a time to provide students as much individual,

lfo
specific, corrective feedback as possible in a small group.

ui
Following is a list of questions to use in guiding intervention planning:
G
• Do you create long-term plans for instructional interventions?
e

• Does the content during the instructional intervention reflect a logical,

Th

research-based sequence?
• Do the plans include days to monitor progress?
• Are the instructional activities well matched to the progress monitoring
14

measure (e.g., no cutting and pasting)?

20

• Are the instructional activities lively and varied?

• Is the amount of time dedicated to each instructional activity specified?
• Is the time dedicated to instructional activities aligned with the content
©

focus (e.g., not too much time on support skills or ancillary activities)?
ht

• Do games and instructional activities optimize the amount of individual

ig

practice for each student?

yr

Goal setting and Progress monitoring

op

On the Intervention Goal-Setting Sheet, there is room for the interventionist to

C

write the intervention goal (see Form 3.1). As described in Chapter 2 the interven­
tion goal is a very precise statement of exactly what kind of progress monitoring
score will constitute success. The first goal that should be established is the MM
goal. The intervention goal addresses questions such as these:

• How will we know when the student has been successful?

• How many items must a student answer correctly to be considered profi­
cient?
• How many words correct per minute must be gained?
 Intervention Lesson plan 69

Often these goals are based on the benchmark scores in a given screener for
the next screening period (e.g., winter or spring). For example, a teacher who is
working with a student in fluency may use the fluency benchmark scores for the
next screening to shape a goal. At other times, a more specific goal is set that
specifies a target relative to the instructional intervention. As described in Chapter
2, at least 12 data points or 3 months of intervention should be conducted before
moving into more intensive Tier 3 interventions. However, it is often the case that
students at the primary levels will make sufficient progress and meet goals before
12 weeks’ time. The earlier that intervention begins in a student’s school career,

s
the more likely that he/she can be “caught up,” and the less likely that a full 12

es
weeks of intervention will be needed. Our goal statement can be found on the

Pr
intervention planning form in Form 3.1. Following are a few examples of goals for
intervention groups:

rd
• To read pseudowords containing short vowels a, e, i, o, u with 90% accu­

lfo
racy by March 1st.
• To identify the sounds for 24/26 letters by May 16th.
ui
• To read 50 words per minute correctly by May 1st.
G
e

Evaluating an Intervention: Intervention logs, Progress

Th

monitoring, and fidelity Checklists

Teachers have planned and delivered instructional interventions long before RTI,
14

but what distinguishes RTI from other approaches is a thorough approach to assess­
20

ing the effectiveness of instructional interventions. We recommend three tools to

evaluate instructional interventions: (1) intervention logs, (2) fidelity checklists,
©

and (3) progress monitoring data.

ht

Intervention Logs
ig

An intervention log is a weekly record of what actually happened during the inter­
yr

vention. Like a ship’s log, it is a dated journal, in this case documenting the con­
op

ditions of the intervention and the responses of each student. Form 3.3 shows a
blank intervention log with boxes for all participating students, their attendance,
C

and notes about their progress. After the intervention has been running for several
weeks, teachers use the intervention log to support their discussions of student
progress. With the notes that they have on the intervention logs, teachers com­
plement progress monitoring data with information about attendance, students’
demeanor during interventions (e.g., cooperative, eager, discouraged, sleepy), and
responses (e.g., “James read accurately and his time improved, but he sounded
robotic” or “Kayla takes a longer time to blend words than other students”). Fre­
quently, the intervention log will include teachers’ hypotheses about why an inter­
vention might not be working effectively.
70 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

Because the intervention log is simple and anecdotal, teachers usually find it
helpful. In each of the following chapters we include a sample intervention log for
the particular content focus, such as letter teaching, fluency, or decoding. These
sample logs show the types of comments that teachers typically make about stu­
dents. Many of these comments are hypotheses. Teachers reflect upon the prog­
ress (or lack thereof) that students are making. For example, in Chapter 4, which
focuses on letter-sound learning, a teacher comments that a student, Juan, an Eng­
lish language learner, may be confusing the /b/ and /p/ sounds because of his first
language, in which these sounds are very similar. When we see a high-quality inter­

s
vention log, we can almost see the wheels turning in the brain of the interventionist.

es
Intervention logs are also important because they help teachers improve

Pr
instruction when an intervention is not working. With an intervention log teach­
ers can maintain brief notes about students’ immediate responses to instruction.

rd
Danielle explained to us:

lfo
“I like having data in front of me during a meeting because I can provide exam­
ples of how a student responded to instruction. For example, I was doing this
ui
fluency intervention group and everyone was doing so well except for Felicia. I
G
just couldn’t figure out was going on and why the intervention wasn’t working
with her. When I looked at my notes, I had occasionally made notes that she
e

read the passages silently because she told me she was shy. I don’t know why I
Th

let her do that, but I did. I realized that she should have been reading the pas­
sages orally and so I insisted and I saw her improve.”
14

We particularly believe in the importance of tracking attendance on the interven­

20

tion log. We worked in one school where we remember a third grader who had made
marvelous progress in a decoding intervention and then started to drop off. When we
©

consulted the intervention logs, we realized that she was only attending about 3 days
ht

per week of a 5-day intervention. Although she was attending school regularly, she
was frequently being pulled out of class for appointments or going home sick or even
ig

in school suspension. If we had relied on the school’s attendance records, we would

yr

have assumed that she attended intervention much more than she did.
op

Fidelity Checklists
C

A fidelity checklist is simply a listing of the essential elements of an intervention

used to evaluate it. Most often someone will use the fidelity checklist to observe
an intervention and look for the essential components. A fidelity checklist for a
fluency intervention might include questions like the following:

• Did students read orally?

• Was the oral reading timed?
• Were the students reading expressively (e.g., not robot reading)?
 Intervention Lesson plan 71

The fidelity checklist is essentially a way of making sure that the intervention is
on track.
In all of our work with teachers doing RTI, we have found that the fidelity
checklist can be the most misunderstood element of RTI. Some teachers are resent­
ful of someone “checking up on them.” Our friend Cheryl from Chapter 1 had
many questions about the fidelity checklist. “It bugged me,” she told us. “I am a
professional and I don’t need someone ‘checking on me.’ I can do my job, and I
have been doing it for several decades.” This perspective is common and certainly
understandable. However, fidelity checklists are not evaluation tools for people.

s
They are evaluations of the intervention. They are not shared with parents, admin­

es
istrators, or even other teachers. People who use them are not curriculum police.

Pr
We use these when students are struggling and not making progress. A fidelity
checklist is usually a good way to clarify the active ingredients in the intervention.

rd
Susan explained:

lfo
“It’s funny. When you put everything into a simple checklist, it’s like a set of

ui
priorities. I find it clarifying. After we did this, I had a reading specialist ask
me about my intervention when we were doing lunch duty. I used to hate those
G
kind of on-the-fly conversations because I always floundered, but since we
e

started to use fidelity checklists like this, I can quickly tell someone what I am
Th

doing and why.”

One way to alleviate the negative feelings that good teachers have about fidel­
14

ity checklists is to ask them to draft a few bullet points that capture what they
20

believe to be the most important components of the intervention. If something is

missing, the committee can discuss that at the onset. After being part of develop­
©

ing the checklists, Cheryl softened a bit.

ht

“I still bristle a bit with the fidelity checklists, but that’s because I usually stay
ig

on course pretty well with what I do. I have found that it’s really helpful if I am
coaching another teacher or if I am sitting on a team and an intervention is not
yr

working. I have been asked by my principal to go in and observe interventions,

op

and I use the checklists to help me think clearly. Sometimes I don’t even share
them with the teachers I am observing but they help me be organized and
C

specific in supporting a teacher, if I need to. Also, it helps me to stay grounded

in what’s important in the intervention. I like being creative and I think that
interventions can be lively and fun, but they can’t veer from the focus of the
intervention. When I am coming up with intervention activities, I look at the
fidelity checklist and ask myself, ‘Is this going to contribute to helping the kids
do what we set up as the goal? Is the activity matched to the target behavior
that we want the kids to display?’ You just have less time to play around in an
intervention, and this keeps me focused.”
72 Reading inteRvention in the PRimaRy gRades

Teachers should not feel as if the fidelity checklist is a secret “gotcha” tool. It
should be clear to everyone which elements of the intervention are most important.
We include sample fidelity checklists in each of the chapters on specific types of
interventions.

Progress Monitoring Data

Perhaps the most important tool used in evaluating the quality of a reading inter­
vention is progress monitoring data. Without this information we cannot really

s
judge the student’s response to the intervention. When evaluating data, we first

es
suggest that teachers look at the MM data to see if the student has responded to

Pr
the content of the intervention. Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of ana­
lyzing data. If the student has not shown progress in acquiring the content in the

rd
intervention, then looking at the GOM will not be helpful. We would not expect
a student to generalize an unlearned skill. When teachers see a lack of progress in

lfo
MM, they know that they must examine the intervention instruction for the stu­

ui
dent. If the student has shown progress at the MM level, then we suggest that the
GOM data be examined to see if there is some impact on a broader goal and if the
G
discrete content of the intervention is having a more extended effect. Keep in mind,
e

however, that any impact on GOM data will usually take longer because it is not
Th

as closely aligned with the intervention.

Following are several questions that we suggest schools and teachers use in
guiding the evaluation of interventions:
14
20

• Does the intervention log provide a weekly review of what happened during
a reading intervention?
• Does the intervention log track student attendance during interventions?
©

• Are anecdotal comments included on intervention logs and do they comple­

ht

ment the progress monitoring data?

ig

• Does the intervention log show hypotheses about why an intervention might
not be working?
yr

• Are simple fidelity checklists created collaboratively when the intervention

op

is set?
• Are fidelity checklists shared with teachers at the outset of the intervention
C

time and used in a transparent, professional, and respectful fashion?

• Do the elements on the fidelity checklist reflect the essential ingredients of
the intervention that will lead to results on the progress monitoring mea­
sure?
• Is a fidelity checklist used to guide observations when an intervention is not
working?
• Is the fidelity checklist treated as a constructive tool to improve interven­
tions rather than a teacher evaluation instrument?
 Intervention Lesson plan 73

Conclusion

As we discuss specific intervention content in the coming chapters, it is impor­

tant to begin with an overarching plan for intervention instruction. Interven­
tions should be research-based, considerate of the developmental continuum, and
informed by diagnostic assessments. When schools take the time to thoughtfully
investigate the research base of intervention programs and strategies, teachers can
confidently embark on interventions knowing that their instructional approach is
supported by research, thereby eliminating a “trial-and-error” saga. Knowledge of

s
the developmental continuum, coupled with diagnostic data for struggling learn­

es
ers, further inform teachers on exactly what kids need and where they need to be.

Pr
Lesson planning for intervention instruction need not be tedious and time-
consuming. By setting goals and timelines and determining progress monitoring

rd
measures ahead of time, interventions can be targeted and well-informed. Long-
range, 6-week planning for interventions keeps instruction consistent and allows

lfo
content to flow from session to session. The planning sheets provided within this
chapter serve as helpful resources in the planning process.
ui
Finally, it is helpful to determine ways in which to ascertain the effectiveness
G
of interventions and to provide opportunities for self-reflection regarding inter­
e

vention instruction. Intervention logs, fidelity checklists, and progress monitor­

Th

ing data can serve as key components in this process. Intervention logs provide
important information from teachers regarding students’ attendance and progress
during intervention sessions. Fidelity checklists contain essential components that
14

should be found in every intervention session. Such checklists are helpful when
20

observing interventions as well as serving as “thought points” for teachers as they

plan intervention instruction. Progress monitoring data help teachers identify who
©

is progressing as a result of instruction and who is not. When logs, checklists, and
progress monitoring data are considered in conjunction with one another, deci­
ht

sions about students’ progress are well informed and supported.

ig
yr
op
C

Copyright © 2014 The Guilford Press. All rights reserved under International Copyright Guilford Publications
Convention. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, or stored in or 72 Spring Street
introduced into any information storage or retrieval system, in any form or by any means, New York, NY 10012
whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the written 212-431-9800
permission of The Guilford Press. 800-365-7006
Purchase this book now: www.guilford.com/p/mesmer2 www.guilford.com