Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 335–355, 2001 Copyright © 2001 Society for the Study of School Psychology Printed in the USA 0022-4405/00 $–see front matter PII S0022-4405(01)00072-3 335 Using Brief Assessments to Identify Effective Interventions for Individual Students George H. Noell Louisiana State University Jennifer T. Freeland Mississippi State University Joseph C. Witt and Kristin A. Gansle Louisiana State University This study examined the utility of brief teaching probes as an assessment for stu- dents referred due to poor academic performance. Reading-decoding skills as as- sessed by students’ oral reading rate on probes containing letters, words, or prose were examined. The brief assessment consisted of three phases: baseline and two instructional interventions. Each phase was presented twice during each brief as- sessment. Brief assessments were conducted across three levels of instructional ma- terials for 4 students, resulting in 12 brief assessments. Ten of the 12 brief assess- ments identified one or both interventions as promising, based on a 20% or greater increase in reading rate over baseline. Following the assessment, an ex- tended analysis was conducted for each student using a multiple baseline across curricular materials. In 83% of cases, interventions received the same classification as effective or ineffective across the brief assessment and extended analysis. Impli- cations for practice and research are discussed. © 2001 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd Keywords: Reading, Assessment, Treatment utility, Intervention, Experimental analysis. The obvious reality that students have diverse needs stands in stark contrast to how obscure an individual student’s educational needs can be. It is fre- quently obvious that educators need to do something differently to meet a student’s needs, and it can be equally unclear what that something should be. Educators typically use assessment data to identify students’ educational needs and to develop plans to address those needs. To the extent that the assessment process contributes to an improved educational outcome, it can be described as having treatment utility (Hayes, Nelson, & Jarrett, 1987). Received November 21, 2000; accepted March 7, 2001. Address correspondence and reprint requests to George H. Noell, Department of Psychol- ogy, 236 Audubon Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5501. Phone: (225) 578-4119; fax: (225) 578-4125; E-mail: gnoell@lsu.edu