Modifiability is a central concept in the area of dynamic assessment. Yet, there has been little attempt to capture the essence of modifiability, either qualitatively or quantitatively. The two studies reported here used a scaling approach to measure components of modifiability. The results indicate that modifiability (here defined as a combination of planning, attention to task/discrimination, motivation, transfer, responsivity, and examiner effort) differentiates between children having low language ability and typically developing children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, the individual components of modifiability, with the exception of motivation, significantly differentiated the two groups. These findings suggest that modifiability is a useful construct in providing a less biased assessment and that the descriptive results obtained from this observation can also be used to link assessment with intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brigance, A. (1978). Brigance diagnostic inventory of early development . North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
2.
Brown, S. (1994). A comparison of dynamic and standardized procedures in the language assessment of Spanish speaking learning disabled adolescents. Unpublished master's thesis, San Diego: San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
3.
Campione, J.C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 151-65.
4.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Education Review, 56(1), 18-36.
5.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, theory, instruments, and techniques . Baltimore: University Park Press .
6.
Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.
7.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. (1979). The dynamic assessment ofretarded performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device. Baltimore: University Park Press.
8.
Fey, M. (1986). Language intervention with young children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
9.
Figueroa, R. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: Knowledge gaps and regulations. Exceptional Children, 56, 145-152.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1990). Rethinking the Regular Education Initiative: Focus on the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 7-16.
13.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Educational Children, 60(4), 310-322.
14.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V., Brown, S., Conboy, B., & Ronbinson-Zañartu, C. (1998). Modifiability: A dynamic approach to assessing immediate language change. Journal of Children's Communication Development, 19(2), 31-43.
15.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V.F., Pena, E., & Quinn, R. (1995). Accommodating cultural differences in narrative style: A multicultural perspective. Topics in Language Disorders , 15(4), 54-67.
16.
Haywood, H.C., Brown, A.L., & Wingenfeld, S. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19, 411-422.
17.
Langdon, H.W. (1989). Language disorders or difference? Assessing the language skills of Hispanic students. Exceptional Children , 56, 160-167.
18.
Lidz, C.S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford Press.
19.
Lidz, C.S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
20.
Lidz, C. (1996). Dynamic assessment and the legacy of L.S. Vygotsky . School Psychology International, 16, 143-154.
21.
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. New York: Guilford Press.
22.
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.
23.
Missiuna, C., & Samuels, M. (1989). Dynamic assessment of preschool children with special needs: Comparison of mediation and instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 53-59.
24.
Olsen, L. (1986). Crossing the schoolhouse border. San Francisco: California Tomorrow.
25.
Olswang, L., & Bain, B. (1991). When to recommend intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 255-263.
26.
Olswang, L., & Bain, B. (1996). Assessment information for predicting upcoming change in language production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 414-423.
27.
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. Baltimore: Brookes.
28.
Olswang, L., Bain, B., Rosendahl, P., Oblak, S., & Smith, A. (1986). Language learning: Moving performance from contest dependent to independent state. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 2, 180-210.
29.
Pearson, B.Z., Fernandez, S.C., & Oller, D.K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43(1), 93-120.
30.
Pena, E. (1993). Dynamic assessment: A non-biased approach for assessing the language of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , Temple University, Philadelphia .
31.
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: Brookes.
32.
Peña, E., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C.S. (1999). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children's word learning ability. Unpublished manuscript.
33.
Peña, E., & Quinn, R. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and AfricanAmerican children. Speech Language Hearing Services In Schools, 28, 323-332.
34.
Peña, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A non-biased procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 269-280.
Tucker, J.A. (1980). Ethnic proportions in classes for the learning disabled: Issues in nonbiased assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 93-105.
37.
Valdes, G., & Figueroa, R.A. (1993). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. New York: Ablex.
38.
Vaughn-Cooke, F.B. (1983). Improving language assessment in minority children . ASHA, 25(9), 29-34.
39.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (1978). Preschool language scale. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
