Dynamic assessment (DA) is a method of evaluation that is more individualized than traditional static assessment. In addition to assessing an individual’s current knowledge, DA endeavors to evaluate learning potential. In DA, both the examiner and examinee are more active than in static assessment. The protocol is flexible and allows for modifications for an individual child. Whereas static assessment describes a child’s performance at a given point in time, DA provides information about how modifiable the child’s performance is (Pena, n.d.).

Theoretical Perspectives Underlying Dynamic Assessment

DA is based on the theoretical perspectives of Vygotsky and Feuerstein (Bamford et al., 2022; Hunt et al., 2022). The first important concept for understanding DA is Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Skills that the individual can do independently are in the zone of actual development, whereas the skills an individual can do with support are in the the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky et al., 1978). Adults scaffold, or support, children as they attempt new skills, gradually fading the level of support as skills move from the zone of proximal development into the zone of actual development.

The second key concept underlying DA is Feuerstein et al.’s (1979) theory of mediated learning experience. In a mediated learning experience, an adult helps to filter and mediate the content for the learner. Comparing the learner’s independent performance to their performance with support provides information about the child’s learning potential or modifiability.  Children’s independent performance is based on prior experience; therefore, current independent performance is not indicative of potential (Feuerstein et al., 2002).

DA has been found to be particularly useful in distinguishing language difference due to cultural and/or linguistic differences from underlying language disorder. Children who are able to make changes over a brief period of time are likely to have language difference only, whereas children who do not make these changes likely have language disorder. Although DA alone is not sufficient to determine the presence or absence of a language disorder, including DA with other measures can improve diagnostic accuracy (Orellana, Wada, & Gillam, 2019). The basic framework of a DA is  either “test-teach-test” or a series of prompts.

The first phase of DA is pretesting. Pretesting assesses a child’s current ability. This provides a baseline prior to intervention.During the teaching phase, a mediated learning experience (MLE) is provided, the child is taught strategies, and the clinician observes the child’s modifiability. There are four components to a mediated learning experience. Intentionality refers to explicitly telling the child the target and the reason for the MLE. Intentionality facilitates increased awareness in the child. Meaning refers to focusing the child’s attention on the important parts of a task, and teaching the child to ignore unimportant components. This helps the child understand why a task is important. Transcendence takes ideas beyond the immediate task, and introduces abstract ideas. Questions such as, “What would happen if…” are used to facilitate transcendence. This promotes hypothetical thinking. Competence is helping the child develop a plan and recognize how and when to use particular strategies. This teaches children to be active participants in their own learning and to be self-regulated. The posttest is administered to assess transfer of strategies and measure growth since the pretest (Pena, n.d.).

Modifiability pertains to the child’s response to a mediated learning experience. To assess modifiability, the clinician considers child responsivity, transfer of skills, and examiner effort. Child responsivity includes attention and use of strategies. Transfer refers to the use of skills from one target, task, or session to the next. Clinical judgments of modifiability have been shown to be informative in the diagnostic process (Orellana, et al., 2019; Hunt et al., 2022). Examiner effort refers to how much and what type of support the child needs (Pena, n.d.). An example of a mediated learning experience is described in this video: https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/issues/example/.

Following a mediated learning experience, post-testing is conducted to assess a child’s application of strategies and growth since the pretest. Qualitative differences, as well as quantitative differences, should be considered at the posttest. These can include application of strategies, amount of support needed, or getting “closer” to the correct answer, even if not providing the exact correct answer (Pena, n.d.). A combination of the “process” scores and the “product,” or posttest scores, can provide information about both the ability to acquire a new language skill and the effort needed to do it (Hunt et al., 2022).

Dynamic Assessment Examples

The Dynamic Assessment of Primary Morphological Awareness (DAPMA; Wolter & Pike, 2015) is administered by asking children to define words and providing a series of scaffolds. This measure assesses morphological awareness.

The CUBED is a family of screening and progress-monitoring tools. The Narrative Language Measures assess listening comprehension, reading comprehension, and decoding in the context of narrative. The Dynamic Decoding Measures evaluate phonemic awareness, decoding, and word identification. They use “test the limits” and “test-teach-test” approaches. More information on the CUBED can be found here: https://www.languagedynamicsgroup.com/cubed/cubed-overview/.

References

Bamford, C. K., Masso, S., Baker, E., & Ballard, K. J. (2022). Dynamic assessment for children with communication disorders: A systematic scoping review and framework. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 31(4), 1878-1893.

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., Falik, L. H., & Rand, Y. (2002). The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability: The Learning Propensity Assessment Device: Theory, instruments and techniques, Rev. and exp. ed. of The dynamic assessment of retarded performers. ICELP Publications.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1979). Cognitive modifiability in retarded adolescents: Effects of instrumental enrichment. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83(6), 539–550.

Hunt, E., Nang, C., Meldrum, S., & Armstrong, E. (2022). Can dynamic assessment identify language disorder in multilingual children? Clinical applications from a systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(2), 598-625.

Orellana, C. I., Wada, R., & Gillam, R. B. (2019). The use of dynamic assessment for the diagnosis of language disorders in bilingual children: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(3), 1298-1317.

Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press

Wolter, J. A., & Pike, K. (2015). Dynamic assessment of morphological awareness and third-grade literacy success. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46(2), 112-126.