This study was conducted to determine whether the cognitive performance of reading disabled and poor readers can be separated under dynamic assessment procedures, and whether measures related to dynamic assessment add unique variance, beyond IQ, in predicting reading achievement scores. The sample consisted of 70 children (39 females and 31 males). Within this sample four groups of children were compared: children with reading disabilities (n=12), children with math/reading disabilities (n=19), poor readers (n=14), and skilled readers (n=25). Intelligence, reading and math tests, and verbal working memory (WM) measures were administered (presented under static and dynamic testing conditions). Two important findings emerged: (a) hierarchical regression analyses found that a dynamic assessment measure factor score contributed unique variance to predicting reading and mathematics, beyond what is attributed to verbal IQ and initial scores related to WM; and (b) poor readers and skilled readers were more likely to change and maintain their WM score gained under the dynamic testing conditions than children with reading disabilities or children with a combination of math/reading disabilities. Implications for a valid classification of reading disabilities are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
2.
BaddeleyA.D.GathercoleS.PapagnoC. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.
3.
BaddeleyA.D.LogieR.H. (1999). The multiple-component model. In MiyakeA.ShahP. (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.)
4.
BatemanB. (1992). Learning disabilities: The changing land-scape. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 29–37.
5.
BentlerP.M.BonettD. (1980). Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
6.
BrownA.L.FerraraR.A. (1999). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In LloydP. (Ed.), L. Vygotsky: Critical assessments: the zones of proximal development (pp. 225–256). New York: Routledge.)
7.
BrownA.L.FrenchL.A. (1979). The zone of potential development: Implications for intelligence testing in the year 2000. Intelligence, 3, 255–273.
8.
BullR.JohnstonR.S.RoyJ.A. (1999). Exploring the roles of the visual-spatial sketch pad and central executive in children's arithmetical skills: Views from cognition and developmental neuropsychology. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15, 421–442.
9.
CampioneJ.C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 151–165.
10.
CampioneJ.C.BrownA.L. (1987). Linking dynamic testing with school achievement. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic testing (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford Press.)
11.
CarlsonJ.S.WiedlK.H. (1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing the limits employing the Raven matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323–344.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
13.
DanemanM.CarpenterP.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
14.
DanemanM.MerikleP.M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 442–433.
15.
DayJ.D.EngelhardtJ.L.MaxwellS.E.BoligE.E. (1997). Comparison of static and dynamic assessment procedures and their relation to independent performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 358–268.
16.
De BeniR.PalladinoP.PazzagliaF.CornoldiC. (1998). Increases in intrusion errors and working memory deficit of poor comprehenders. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 51, 305–320.
17.
ElliottJ.LauchlanF. (1997). Assessing potential - the search for the philosopher's stone?Educational and Child Psychology, 14, 6–16.
18.
EmbretsonS.E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In LidzC. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: Foundations and fundamentals (pp. 141–172). New York: Guilford.)
19.
EmbretsonS.E. (1992). Measuring and validating cognitive modifiability as an ability: A study in the spatial domain. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 25–50.
20.
EngleR.W.KaneM.J.TuholskiS. (1999a). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In MiyakeA.ShahP. (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 102–134). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.)
21.
Federal Register. (1977). The rules of a regulatory for implementing P.L. 94–142. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22.
FletcherJ.M.FrancisD.J.RourkeB.P.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A. (1992). The validity of discrepancy-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 555–561.
23.
FletcherJ.M.ShaywitzS.E.ShankweilerD.P.KatzL.LibermanI.Y.StuebingK.K.FrancisD.J.FowlerB.ShaywitzB.A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23
24.
FletcherJ.M.LyonG.R.BarnesM.StuebingK.K.FrancisD.J.OlsonR.K.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidenced-based evaluation. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)
25.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
HoskynM.SwansonH.L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. The School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119.
28.
JastakS.WilkinsonG.S. (1984). Manual: The Wide Range Achievement Tests-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
29.
JitendraA.K.KameenuiE.J. (1993). Dynamic testing as a compensatory testing approach: A description and analysis. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 14, 6–18.
30.
JoreskogK.G.SorbomD. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software Inc.
31.
KlineR.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guildford.
32.
KyllonenP.C.ChristalR.E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?Intelligence, 14, 389–433.
33.
McCutchenD. (2000). Knowledge, processing and working memory: Implication for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.
34.
MarshH.W.BaliaJ.R.McDonaldR.P. (1988). Goodness-of- fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.
35.
MurphyK.R.MyorsB. (1998). Statistical power analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
NunnallyJ.BernsteinI.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
37.
ShaywitzS.E.FletcherJ.M.HolahanJ.M.ShneiderA.E.MarchioneK.E.StuebingK.K.FrancisD.ShaywitzB.A. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut longitudinal study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351–1359.
38.
ShepherdL.A.SmithM.L.VojirC.P. (1983). Characteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 309–331.
39.
SiegelL.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478.
40.
SiegelL.S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618–629.
41.
SiegelL.S.RyanE.B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled. Child Development, 60, 973–980.
42.
StanovichK.SiegelL.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.
43.
StevensJ. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
StuebingK.K.FletcherJ.M.LeDouxJ.M.LyonG.R.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A. (2002). Validity of IQ- discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.
45.
SwansonH.L. (1992). Generality and modifiability of working memory among skilled and less skilled readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 473–488.
46.
SwansonH.L. (1993). Working memory in learning disability subgroups. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 87–114.
47.
SwansonH.L. (1995a). Swanson-Cognitive Processing Test (S-CPT). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
48.
SwansonH.L. (1995b). Using the Cognitive Processing Test to assess ability: Development of a dynamic measure. School Psychology Review, 24, 672–693.
49.
SwansonH.L. (1996). Individual and age-related differences in children's working memory. Memory & Cognition, 24, 70–82.
50.
SwansonH.L. (1999). Reading comprehension and working memory in skilled readers: Is the phonological loop more important than the executive system?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 1–31.
51.
SwansonH.L. (2003). Age-related differences in learning disabled and skilled readers' working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 1–31.
52.
SwansonH.L.HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277–321.
53.
SwansonH.L.LussierC. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321–363.
54.
SwansonH.L.SiegelL. (2001). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 7, 1–48.
55.
TorgesenJ.K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice(pp. 565–603). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)
56.
TorgesenJ.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.
57.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE. (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (original work published 1935).)
58.
WechslerD. (1991). Manual: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Third Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
59.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM.R.McGrueM. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.
