Ci3T Implementation Measures
As schools implement Ci3T, school leaders participate in the Ci3T Implementation Professional Learning Series, which emphasizes using multiple data sources to guide decision-making. Below, find information on measures used to support implementation, including measure descriptions, templates, and reports.
If you are looking for more information about how to lead the collection of treatment integrity and social validity data in your school or district, we encourage you to complete the Ci3T Module Serving as a Ci3T Leader: Preparing to Collect Social Validity and Treatment Integrity Data.
Ci3T Treatment Integrity: Teacher Self-Report V1.1
The Ci3T Treatment Integrity: Teacher Self-Report V1.1 (Ci3T TI: TSR; Lane, 2009; Lane et al., 2020a) is used to measure the level of implementation of a school’s Ci3T Tier 1 plan.
The Ci3T TI: TSR is completed by all faculty and staff twice per year, once in fall and again in spring.
The Ci3T TI: TSR is a 49-item checklist assessing educator use of Ci3T practices. There are three subscales: Procedures for Teaching (20 items; e.g., Did I differentiate instruction [academic tasks] as needed?), Procedures for Reinforcing (13 items; e.g., Did I give tickets to students demonstrating school-wide expectations?), and Procedures for Monitoring (16 items; e.g., Did I complete behavior screeners at each time requested by my principal or Ci3T Team?). Educators rate items using a 4-point Likert-type scale as follows: 0 = not at all, 1 = some of the time, 2 = most of the time, 3 = all of the time, with an additional n/a – not related to my role response option.
Each subscale score is created by summing items, dividing by the total number of points possible after correcting for missing items (or items rated n/a), and multiplying by 100 to convert to a percentage. The Ci3T TI:TSR also features a total score computed by summing all completed items, dividing by the total possible score based on the number of items completed, then multiplying by 100. Levels of treatment integrity at the school level are computed by calculating the mean of all respondents for each subscale score and a total score.
Ci3T Leadership Teams review data from the Ci3T TI: TSR to identify implementation strengths and areas for improvement. For example, these data are summarized and shared with faculty and staff, used to plan professional learning, and used to make plan revisions each summer. Additionally, teams can monitor integrity of the core components over time and in conjunction with student data. For example, if there are increases in behavioral risk on screening measures or office discipline referrals, teams would examine the integrity data to ensure students have access to the Ci3T primary plan before assuming non-responsiveness. That is, consider if the Ci3T plan is being implemented at sufficient integrity to produce the desired results for students.
Studies of the Ci3T TI: TSR (v1.0) indicated adequate to desirable internal consistency (Bruhn, 2011), as have studies of the updated measure (v1.1; Lane et al., 2026).
Ci3T Treatment Integrity: Direct Observation
The Ci3T Treatment Integrity: Direct Observation V1.1 (Ci3T TI: DO; Lane, 2009b; Lane et al., 2020b) tool is a subset of items from the Ci3T Treatment Integrity: Teacher Self-Report (Ci3T TI: TSR).
The CI3T TI: DO is conducted twice per year, once in fall and again in spring. Typically, schools randomly select 25% of instructional staff, stratified by grade (elementary, middle school) or department (high school) for observations.
The Ci3T TI: DO includes 17 items for procedures for teaching, and 12 procedures for reinforcing. Trained observers enter a classroom for 30 minutes and score each item using a Likert-type scale, indicating the level of implementation observed during that session for each item (not at all = 0, some of the time = 1, most of the time = 2; all of the time = 3; no opportunity = n/a). After the observation time and at a natural break in instruction, the teacher completes the same direct observation tool and scores his or her perception of implementation during the same 30 minute time period.
Treatment Integrity is computed by dividing total score by total possible (adjusted for missing items) and multiplying by 100, with the goal of examining the extent to which the observer and teacher converge and diverge in their views of implementing the Ci3T Tier 1 plan.
Results can be used to celebrate strengths and to inform professional development offerings to support particular components of the plan (Lane, Oakes, & Magill, 2014). For more information and a PDF of the tool, see the Enhancing Ci3T Module Preparing to Collect Social Validity and Treatment Integrity Data.
Tiered Fidelity Inventory
The Tiered Fidelity Inventory (TFI; Algozzine et al., 2019) version 3.0 is a treatment integrity tool used to evaluate implementation of the positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) component of a school’s Ci3T plan. It is divided into three sections corresponding to Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 features. Sections can be used separately or all together to evaluate to what degree of fidelity core features of PBIS are in place at each tier.
Primary Intervention Rating Scale (Implementation)
The Primary Intervention Rating Scale (PIRS) by Lane, Robertson, and Wehby (2002; Lane, Kalberg, Bruhn, Driscoll, Wehby, & Elliott, 2009) is an adapted version of the Intervention Rating Profile-15 (Witt & Elliott, 1985), a widely used measure of social validity.
Social validity refers to stakeholders’ views on the social significance of the intervention goals, acceptability of the intervention procedures, and the social importance of the intervention outcomes (Wolf, 1978).
The PIRS is a brief, individual-completed rating scale designed to assess social validity of primary prevention plans prior to intervention onset (pre-intervention) and after the primary prevention plan has been put in place (implementation).
To complete, each individual from the school site who has reviewed the Ci3T primary prevention plan (or other primary prevention plan) rates his or her opinion on 17 items using a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree, and then completes four open-ended questions regarding suggestions for changes to the primary plan, perceptions of student performance as a result of implementing the primary plan, and what is felt to be the least and most beneficial components of the primary plan.
The PIRS takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.
Please see Lane, Oakes, and Magill (2014) in the volume 58, issue 3, 2014 special issue of Preventing School Failure, Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Models of Prevention: A Step-by-Step Guide as well as Pelton and colleagues (2024).