ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchoolsTutorial1 Oct 2001

Dynamic Assessment of Diverse Children

A Tutorial
    https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/019)

    Dynamic assessment (DA) has been advocated as an alternative and/or supplemental approach to traditional standardized testing with children who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD). However, there is great variability across DA methods and applications, as well as limited information concerning which methods and procedures may be best suited to differentiate language disorder from difference. In this tutorial, DA methods are compared with respect to their assessment applications. Next, an assessment protocol recommended for the identification of language disorder versus difference is described. Finally, examples of two Spanish-English bilingual children are used to show how the protocol may be useful to assess children's language-learning potential and to minimize misdiagnosis.

    REFERENCES

    • Allen, M., & Yen, W. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
      Google Scholar
    • Anastasi, A. (1981). Coaching, test sophistication, and developed abilities.American Psychologist, 36(10), 1086–1093.
      Google Scholar
    • Bain, B., & Olswang, L. (1995). Examining readiness for learning two-word utterances by children with specific expressive language impairment: Dynamic assessment validation.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4(1), 81–92.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Budoff, M. (1974). Learning potential and educability among the educable mentally retarded. (Final Report Project No. 312312). Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational Problems, Cambridge Mental Health Association.
      Google Scholar
    • Budoff, M. (1987). Measures for assessing learning potential.In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173–195). New York: Guilford.
      Google Scholar
    • Campione, J., & Brown, A. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement.In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford.
      Google Scholar
    • Carlson, J., & Wiedl, K. (1980). Applications of a dynamic testing approach in intelligence assessment: Empirical results and theoretical formulations.Zeitschrift fer differentielle und diagnostische phycholologie, 1(4), 303–318.
      Google Scholar
    • Carlson, J., & Wiedl, K. H. (1978). Use of testing-the-limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82, 559–564.
      Google Scholar
    • Carlson, J., & Wiedl, K. H. (1992). The dynamic assessment of intelligence.In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment (pp. 167–186). New York: Springer-Verlag.
      Google Scholar
    • Embretson, S. E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach.In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 141–170). New York: Guilford.
      Google Scholar
    • Embretson, S. E. (1991). Implications of a multidimensional latent trait model for measuring change.In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 184–197). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.
      Google Scholar
    • Evans, L., Maschmeyer, J., & McFarlane, L. (1996, November). Relationship between awareness and severity of phonological disorders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Seattle, WA.
      Google Scholar
    • Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Fey, M. (1986). Language intervention with young children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
      Google Scholar
    • Gardner, M. F. (1979). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
      Google Scholar
    • Gardner, M. F. (1990). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
      Google Scholar
    • Ginsburg, H. P. (1986). Academic diagnosis: Contributions from developmental psychology.In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Individual subject and scientific psychology (pp. 235–260). New York: Plenum.
      Google Scholar
    • Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Gray, S., Plante, E., Vance, R., & Henrichsen, M. (1999). The diagnostic accuracy of four vocabulary tests administered to preschool-age children.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 196–206.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., Brown, S., Robinson-Zañartu, C., & Conboy, B. (1998). Modifiability.Journal of Children’s Communication Development, 19(2), 31–43.
      Google Scholar
    • Gutiérrez-Clellen, V., Peña, E., & Quinn, R. (1995). Accommodating cultural differences in narrative style: A multicultural perspective.Topics in Language Disorders, 15(4), 54–67.
      Google Scholar
    • Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Quinn, R. (1993). Assessing narratives in diverse cultural/linguistic populations: Clinical implications.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24(1), 2–9.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Jedrysek, E., Klapper, A., Pope, L., & Wortis, J. (1972). Psychoeducational evaluation of the preschool child. New York: Grune and Stratton.
      Google Scholar
    • Lidz, C. (1996). Dynamic assessment and the legacy of L. S. Vygotsky.School Psychology International, 16(2), 143–154.
      Google Scholar
    • Lidz, C. S. (1987). Historical perspectives.In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 3–34). New York: Guilford.
      Google Scholar
    • Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
      Google Scholar
    • Lidz, C. S., & Thomas, C. (1987). The preschool learning assessment device: Extension of a static approach.In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 288–326). New York: Guilford.
      Google Scholar
    • Long, S. H., & Olswang, L. B. (1996). Readiness and patterns of growth in children with SELI.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5(1), 79–85.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Miller, L., Gillam, R., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment and intervention: Improving children’s narrative abilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
      Google Scholar
    • Norris, J., & Hoffman, P. (1990). Language intervention within naturalistic environments.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 72–80.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Olswang, L., & Bain, B. (1996). Assessment information for predicting upcoming change in language production.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 414–423.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Olswang, L., Bain, B., & Johnson, G. (1992). Using dynamic assessment with children with language disorders.In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 187–216). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Peña, E. (1993). Dynamic assessment: A non-biased approach for assessing the language of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
      Google Scholar
    • Peña, E. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model and language applications.In K. Cole, P. Dale, & D. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 281–307). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Peña, E. (2000). Measurement of modifiability in children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21(2), 87–97.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Peña, E. (2001). Assessment of semantic knowledge: Use of feedback and clinical interviewing.Seminars in Speech and Language, 22(1), 51–63.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Peña, E. (n.d.). [Performance of African American and Puerto Rican preschoolers on the EOWPVT in feedback vs. no-feedback conditions.] Unpublished raw data.
      Google Scholar
    • Peña, E., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children’s word learning ability.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 138–154.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Peña, E., & Quinn, R. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and African American children.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 323–332.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Peña, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A non-biased procedure.Journal of Special Education, 26, 269–280.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy instruction for linguistically different students.Harvard Educational Review, 62, 427–446.
      Google Scholar
    • Spector, J. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 353–363.
      Google Scholar
    • Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Riverside.
      Google Scholar
    • Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. (1985). Analogical thinking modifiability in disadvantaged, regular, special education, and mentally retarded children.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 539–552.
      Google Scholar
    • Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. (1987). Assessing the young child: Children’s analogical thinking modifiability.In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 268–287). New York: Guilford.
      Google Scholar
    • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (1978). Preschool Language Scale. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources