Dynamic assessment uses a test—teach—retest approach that can assist clinicians in differentiating between children with learning disabilities and children with learning differences. This article describes a model of dynamic assessment of narratives and its use with children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Case studies illustrate how information from dynamic assessment can help determine the effects of experience on performance, distinguish between language impairment and language difference, and make accurate placement decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association. ( 1989). Issues in determining eligibility for language intervention . Asha, 31, 113—118.
2.
Berry, K.E. (1997). Developmental Test of Visual—Motor Integration— Revised (4th ed). Parsippany, NJ: Modern Curriculum Press .
3.
Blatchley-Hibbard, M. (2000). Cognitive referencing and language impairment: A look at the WISC—III. Language, Learning andEducation , 7, 17—20.
4.
California Department of Education. (2001). Data-informed decision making. The Special EdGE. 15(1), 1.
5.
California education code: 2000 desktop edition. (2000). Eagan, MN: West Group.
6.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (2000). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
7.
Cirrin, F.M. (1996). Discrepancy models: Implications for service in public schools. Language, Learning andEducation, 3(1), 9—10.
8.
Fey, M.E. (1996). Cognitive referencing in the study of children with language impairments. Language, Learning andEducation , 3(1), 7—8.
9.
Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., & Rourke, B.P. (1996). Defining learning and language disabilities: Conceptual and psychometric issues with the use of IQ tests. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27(2), 132—143.
Gardner, M.F. (1996a). Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills—Revised . Burlingame, CA: Psychological and Educational Publications.
12.
Gardner, M.F. (1996b). Test of Visual Perceptual Skills—Revised . Burlingame, CA: Psychological and Educational Publications.
13.
Koppitz, E.M. (1973). The Bender Gestalt Test for Young Children. York-town Heights, NY: Grune & Stratton.
14.
Krassowski, E., & Plante, E. (1997). IQ variability in children with SLI: Implications for use of cognitive referencing in determining SLI. Journal of Communication Disorders, 30(1), 1—9.
15.
Lyon, G.R. (2001, March 8). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Statement of Dr. G. Reid Lyon. Subcommittee on Education Reform. Retrieved November 30, 2005, from http://www.nrrf.org/lyon_statement3-01.htm
16.
Mayer, M. (1975). One frog too many. New York : Penguin.
17.
Miller, L. (2000a). Bird and his ring. Austin, TX: Neon Rose Productions.
18.
Miller, L. (2000b). Two friends. Austin, TX: Neon Rose Productions.
19.
Miller, L., Gillam, R., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment and intervention: Improving children's narrative skills. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
20.
Moore-Brown, B., & Montgomery, J. (2001). Making a difference for America's children: Speech—language pathologists in public schools. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
21.
Moore-Brown, B. & Montgomery, J. (2005). Making a difference in the era of accountability: Update on IDEA 2004 and NCLB. Eau Clarie, WI: Thinking Publications.
22.
Peña, E., Gillam, R., & Miller, L. (2003). Dynamic assessment of narratives: Revised scripts for assessment mediation. Retrieved November 30, 2005 from http://www.neonrose.net/dynamicassessment/script.pdf
23.
Peña, E., Gillam, R., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C., et al. (in review). Dynamic assessment of school-age children's narrative ability: An experimental investigation ofreliability and classification accuracy .
24.
Peña, E., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children's word learning ability. American Journal of Speech—LanguagePathology, 10, 138—154.
25.
Peña, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A non-biased procedure. Journal of Special Education , 26(3), 269—280.
26.
Peña, E., & Villarreal, B. (2000). Modifiability observation form. [Unpublished instrument].
27.
Reed, D. (2000, March). Specific learning disability diagnosis in California: A critical look at the criteria for determining severe discrepancy . Paper presented at the California Advisory Commission on Special Education, California Department of Education , Sacramento.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children —Third edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
31.
Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler individual achievement test —Second edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
32.
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock—Johnson battery—Third edition . Itasca, IL: Riverside.
33.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Twenty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
