Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2009; 30(2): 121-133
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1215719
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Response to Intervention and Dynamic Assessment: Do We Just Appear to Be Speaking the Same Language?

Carol S. Lidz1 , Elizabeth D. Peña2
  • 1Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • 2Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 April 2009 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

In this article we compare and contrast two frameworks for assessment that appear to share the same language yet produce very different approaches and outcomes: response to instruction/intervention and dynamic assessment. We explore the nature of each, elaborate their similarities and differences, and suggest there are sufficient similarities in goals and principles that the two should be melded into a single model that promotes development of learning competence in children. We specifically consider the relevance of the combined model of response to intervention plus dynamic assessment for professionals involved with language development and disorders.

KEYWORDS

Response to intervention - responsiveness to intervention - response to instruction - dynamic assessment - assessment of learning potential - interactive assessment - language development - language disorders - learning disabilities

REFERENCES

  • 1 Cole K N, Dale P S, Mills P E. Stability of the intelligence quotient-language quotient relation: is discrepancy modeling based on a myth?.  Am J Ment Retard. 1992;  97 131-143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sternberg R J, Grigorenko E L. Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: it's time to use a different method.  J Sch Psychol. 2002;  40 65-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Miller C A, Gilbert E. Comparison of performance on two nonverbal intelligence tests by adolescents with and without language impairment.  J Commun Disord. 2008;  41 358-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Plante E. Criteria for SLI: the Stark and Tallal legacy and beyond.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 951-957
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub L No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. 
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Feuerstein R. The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques. Baltimore, MD; University Park Press 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Feuerstein R, Miller R, Rand Y, Jensen M. Can evolving techniques better measure cognitive change?.  J Spec Educ. 1981;  15 201-219
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Feuerstein R, Rand Y, Jensen M R, Kaniel S, Tzuriel D. Prerequisites for assessment of learning potential: the LPAD model. In: Lidz CS Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. New York, NY; Guilford Press 1987: 33-51
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Vygotsky L S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Vygotsky L S. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Haywood H C, Lidz C S. Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications. New York, NY; Cambridge University Press 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Bransford J D, Delclos V R, Vye N J, Burns M S, Hasselbring T S. State of the art and future directions. In: Lidz CS Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. New York, NY; Guilford Press 1987: 479-496
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Lidz C S, Elliott J G. Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. New York, NY; Elsevier Science 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Lidz C S. Practitioner's Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York, NY; Guilford Press 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Fuchs D, Fuchs L S, Compton D L. Dynamic Assessment for Young At-Risk Readers [Unpublished test]. Nashville, TN; Vanderbilt University 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Fuchs L S, Compton D L, Fuchs D, Hollenbeck K N, Craddock C F, Hamlett C L. Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders' development of mathematical problem solving.  J Educ Psychol. 2008;  100 829-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Spector J. Predicting progress in beginning reading: dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness.  J Educ Psychol. 1992;  84 353-363
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gerber M M. Dynamic assessment for students with learning disabilities: lessons in theory and design. In: Lidz CS, Elliot JE Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; JAI/Elsevier 2000: 263-292
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Lidz C S. Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. New York, NY; Guilford Press 1987
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Hasson N, Joffe V. The case for dynamic assessment in speech and language therapy.  Child Lang Teach Ther. 2007;  23 9-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Miller L, Gillam R B, Peña E D. Dynamic Assessment and Intervention: Improving Children's Narrative Skills. Austin, TX; PRO-ED 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Ukrainetz T A, Harpell S, Walsh C, Coyle C. A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2000;  31 142-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Burton V J, Watkins R V. Measuring word learning: dynamic versus static assessment of kindergarten vocabulary.  J Commun Disord. 2007;  40 335-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Olswang L, Bain B, Johnson G. Using dynamic assessment with children with language disorders. In: Warren SF, Reichle J Causes and Effects in Communication and Language Intervention. Baltimore, MD; Paul H. Brookes 1992: 187-216
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Roseberry C A, Connell P J. The use of an invented language rule in the differentiation of normal and language-impaired Spanish-speaking children.  J Speech Hear Res. 1991;  34 596-603
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jacobs E L. The effects of adding dynamic assessment components to a computerized preschool language screening test.  Comm Disord Q. 2001;  22 217-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Laing S P, Kamhi A. Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2003;  34 44-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kozulin A. Sociocultural theory and the mediated learning experience.  Sch Psychol Int. 2002;  23 7-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lidz C S. Mediated learning experience (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment.  Sch Psychol Int. 2002;  23 68-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Peña E D, Gillam R B, Malek M et al.. Dynamic assessment of children from culturally diverse backgrounds: applications to narrative assessment.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006;  49 1037-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Peña E D, Iglesias A, Lidz C S. Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children's word learning ability.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2001;  10 138-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Restrepo M A, Schwanenflugel P J, Blake J, Neuharth-Pritchett S, Cramer S E, Ruston H P. Performance on the PPVT-III and the EVT: applicability of the measures with African American and European American preschool children.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2006;  37 17-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Peña E D, Gillam R B. Dynamic assessment of children referred for speech and language evaluations. In: Lidz CS, Elliott J Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. Oxford, UK; Elsevier Science 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Peña E D, Gillam R, Resendiz M. The role of clinical judgments of modifiability in the diagnosis of language impairment.  Adv Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;  9 332-345
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dunn L, Dunn L. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3rd ed. Circle Pines, MN; American Guidance Service 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Bain B, Olswang L. Examining readiness for learning two-word utterances by children with specific expressive language impairment: dynamic assessment validation.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1995;  4 81-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Olswang L, Bain B. When to recommend intervention.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1991;  22 255-263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Olswang L, Bain B. Assessment information for predicting upcoming change in language production.  J Speech Hear Res. 1996;  39 414-423
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Donaldson A L, Olswang L B. Investigating requests for information in children with autism spectrum disorders: static versus dynamic assessment.  Adv Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;  9 297-311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Glaspey A, Stoel-Gammon C. A dynamic approach to phonological assessment.  Adv Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;  9 286-296
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Healy K, Vanderwood M, Edelston D. Early literacy interventions for English language learners: support for an RTI model.  Calif Sch Psychol. 2005;  10 55-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Abbott S P, Berninger V W. It's never too late to remediate: teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades 4–7.  Ann Dyslexia. 1999;  49 223-250
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Abbott S P, Reed E, Abbott R D, Berninger V W. Year-long balanced reading/writing tutorial: a design experiment used for dynamic assessment.  Learn Disabil Q. 1997;  20 249-263
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Sternberg R J. Raising the achievement of all students: teaching for successful intelligence.  Educ Psychol Rev. 2002;  14 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Ysseldyke J. Assessment and decision making for students with learning disabilities: what if this is as good as it gets?.  Learn Disabil Q. 2005;  28 125-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Sternberg R J, Grigorenko E L. Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. New York, NY; Cambridge University Press 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Mastropieri M A, Scruggs T E. Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities.  J Learn Disabil. 2005;  38 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Marston D. Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns.  J Learn Disabil. 2005;  38 539-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Fletcher J M, Francis D J, Morris R D, Lyon G R. Evidence-based assessment of learning disabilities in children and adolescents.  J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2005;  34 506-522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Elksnin L K. Identification of learning disabilities: research to practice.  Psychol Sch. 2004;  41 581-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Grigorenko E L. Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: two sides of one coin.  J Learn Disabil.. 2009;  42(2) 111-132
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Moore-Brown B J, Montgomery J K, Bielinski J, Shubin J. Responsiveness to intervention: teaching before testing helps avoid labeling.  Top Lang Disord. 2005;  25 148-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Moore-Brown B J, Hueta M, Uranga-Hernandez Y, Peña E D. Using dynamic assessment to evaluate children with suspected learning disabilities.  Intervent Sch Clin. 2006;  41 209-217
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Vellutino F R, Scanlon D M, Sipay E R et al.. Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability.  J Educ Psychol. 1996;  88 601-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Denton C A, Fletcher J M, Anthony J L, Francis D J. An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties.  J Learn Disabil. 2006;  39 447-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Hilden K R, Pressley M. Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction.  Read Writ Q. 2007;  23 51-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Pressley M. Cognitive Strategy Instruction That Really Improves Children's Academic Performance. Cambridge, MA; Brookline Books 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Kovaleski J F. Response to intervention: considerations for research and systems change.  School Psych Rev. 2007;  36 638-646
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Kovaleski J F. Potential pitfalls of response to intervention. In: Jimerson SR, Burns MK, VanDerHeyden AM Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention. New York, NY; Springer Science + Business Media 2007: 80-89
    Google Scholar
  • 60 Caffrey E, Fuchs D, Fuchs L S. The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: a review.  J Spec Educ. 2008;  41 254-270
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Fuchs D, Fuchs L S, Compton D L, Bouton B, Caffrey E, Hill L. Dynamic assessment as responsiveness of intervention: a scripted protocol to identify young at-risk readers.  Teaching Exceptional Children. 2007;  39 58-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 O'Connor R E, Fulmer D, Harty K R, Bell K M. Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: changes in teaching and student outcomes.  J Learn Disabil. 2005;  38 440-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 O'Connor R E, Harty K R, Fulmer D. Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade.  J Learn Disabil. 2005;  38 532-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Ehren B J, Nelson N W. The responsiveness to intervention approach and language impairment.  Top Lang Disord. 2005;  25 120-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Roth F P, Troia G A, Worthington C K, Handy D. Promoting awareness of sounds in speech (PASS): the effects of intervention and stimulus characteristics on the blending performance of preschool children with communication impairments.  Learn Disabil Q. 2006;  29 67-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Justice L M. Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2006;  37 284-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Walpole S, Justice L M, Invernizzi M A. Closing the gap between research and practice: case study of school-wide literacy reform.  Read Writ Q. 2004;  20 261-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Ukrainetz T A. The implications of RTI and EBP for SLPs: commentary on L. M. Justice.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2006;  37 298-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Catts H W, Fey M E, Zhang X, Tomblin J B. Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: a research-based model and its clinical implementation.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2001;  32 38-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Tomblin J B. A normativist account of language-based learning disability.  Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2006;  21 8-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Haywood H C, Brooks P, Burns S. Bright Start: Cognitive Curriculum for Young Children. Watertown, MA; Charles Bridge 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 72 Stubbe Kester E, Peña E D, Gillam R B. Outcomes of dynamic assessment with culturally and linguistically diverse students: a comparison of three teaching methods.  J Cogn Educ Psychol. 2001;  2 42-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Cole K N, Dale P. Direct language instruction and interactive language instruction with language delayed preschool children: a comparison study.  J Speech Hear Res. 1986;  29 206-217
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Elizabeth D PeñaPh.D. 

Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Texas at Austin, One University Station

A1100 Austin, TX 78702

Email: lizp@mail.utexas.edu

      >