Dynamic Assessment: A Complimentary Tool for Assessments and Interventions in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Population.
With the expanding cultural and linguistic diversity in the United Kingdom, particularly in London, Speech and Language Therapists are often faced with the challenge of evaluating speech and language concerns in bilingual children (Hasson et al., 2013). Moreover, norms from language assessments standardised on monolingual English-speaking children cannot be applied to culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) population. In order to determine children’s learning potential, and reduce the cultural and linguistic bias inherent to static tests, dynamic assessment (DA) is used as a complementary approach. Researchers have demonstrated its potential as an effective tool for discriminating disorder from difference due to linguistic context (Hasson et al., 2013), and in identifying clinical need in CLD population (Hasson and Joffe, 2007; Lids and Pena, 2009). The observations of children’s responses to mediation provide a strong indication for their modifiability and aid in determining appropriate strategies for further management (Hasson & Dodd, 2014; Gutierrez-Clellen & Pena, 2001; Campione & Brown, 1987, p.99). Although questions have been raised about validity/reliability and standardisation, the considerable insight gained from dynamic assessment (DA) cannot be denied.
In this article, an attempt will be made to critically examine the research evidence for DA, and to consider using Dynamic Assessment of Pre-schoolers’ Proficiency in Learning English (DAPPLE) as a viable screening tool in discriminating disorder from difference for further management in bilingual children.
Dynamic assessment:
Dynamic Assessment (DA) incorporates a range of methods for exploring learning potential using prompts, cues and mediation based on different models (testing the limits, graduated prompting and test-teach-retest) (Pena et al., 2001). It enables a deep understanding of cognitive processes i.e. tactics, strategies, habits, modes of thinking, approaching and solving problems (Haywood and Lidz, 2007). The main focus is on determining the ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1978) that lies between the level of performance the child can reach unassisted and the level attained with adult assistance (Gutierrez-Clellen & Pena, 2001). Feuerstein applied Vygotsky’s concept of ZPD in his approach of DA, which he termed as ‘mediated learning experience’. His applications of DA in clinical populations are well known (Haywood, 1993), and they are very relevant to assessment and intervention in Speech and Language Therapy (Hasson and Joffe, 2007).
Strong Supportive Evidence for DA in CLD population:
Studies on DA emerged in the early 90’s. Olswang et al. (1992) investigated responses of two children (aged 32 and 35 months) to prompting in DA of expressive language, revealing a differential potential for immediate learning. By using the test-teach-retest approach, Roseberry and Connell (1991) found that children from CLD backgrounds with and without language impairment learned and invented morpheme rules at different rates. This differential learning rate enabled the researchers to classify the two groups with better sensitivity and specificity. Pena and Iglesias (1992) applied DA methods in their study on 50 bilingual children (age range of 3.7-4.9 years) and concluded that DA effectively differentiates children with language differences from those with possible language disorders.
More recently, in a series of studies on CLD population, several interesting findings emerged:
- DA could determine therapeutic needs of three children with specific language impairment (Pena and Gillam, 2000).
- DA methods were more predictive in differentiating typically developing children from those with language impairment (Pena et al., 2001) in CLD population on a word-learning task.
- DA had a significant advantage over static tests for classification while exploring narrative ability in first and second grade school children (Pena et al., 2006). Hence, the best predictor was the child’s modifiability (response to mediation) rather than pre-test to post-test change.
- In another study on children with Down syndrome, Alony and Kozulin (2007) demonstrated that a DA of receptive vocabulary using verbal mediation could reveal the children’s underlying abilities that were often underestimated by static assessments.
Some of the early work of applying DA in Speech and Language Therapy in the UK was carried out by Camilleri and Law (2007). From their study of receptive vocabulary for identifying children with language impairment, they concluded that DA was a more valid measure of lexical ability in children learning English as an additional language as well as monolingual children. In their pilot study, by constructing a procedure for DA of expressive grammar, Hasson and Botting (2010) observed differential changes in children in response to mediated training, which was useful to inform intervention for children with language impairment. Hasson et al. (2012) examined the skills of 24 children with language impairment on a DA of sentence formulation and concluded that DA could predict outcomes from intervention and determine differential potential of children who could benefit from intervention.
Camilleri and Law (2013) used DA to enhance assessments of pre-school children with language impairment and suggested that DA added predictive value in identifying children in need of on-going support. Glaspey and Stoel-Gammon (2007) found that DA using graduated prompting was more sensitive to changes in response to intervention compared with static assessment. They demonstrated how information gathered during DA using their Scaffolding Scale of Stimulability could be closely integrated with intervention. Hernandez (2013) evaluated the potential of graduated prompting for measuring modifiability in a screening context among preschool children with bilingual experiences. She concluded that modifiability measures can accurately distinguish language difference from disorder, and hence, graduated prompts show promise for early identification of language impairment among bilingual children.
Criticisms and Limitations of DA:
Research in this relatively new area of applying DA in Speech and Language Therapy is sporadic; an inherent problem being that DA relies on language as a medium for carrying out mediational interaction. As the domain being assessed is language, this may pose a problem when children have language difficulties (Camilleri and Botting, 2013).
Another reason for low levels of DA use in Speech and Language Therapy may be due to the subjectivity in administration and scoring, making analysis and interpretation of results less reliable and valid (Guthke & Wingenfeld, 1992).
Absence of improvements in the intervention phase could reflect on the learning opportunities being inappropriate, and not on individual’s learning potential (Law and Camilleri, 2007). The types of prompts or cues that will have the most impact on the child’s learning will depend on the nature and extent of language difficulties (Bain & Olswang, 1995). Hence, an in-depth understanding of various aspects of learning and mediation is of paramount importance. The emphasis on individual performance along different parameters has also led to several criticisms and DA is thought to be time-consuming, laborious, and lacking in reliability and validity (Haywood & Tzuriel, 2002; Jitendra & Kameenui, 1993).
Using DAPPLE as a screening tool:
Hasson et al. (2013) designed Dynamic Assessment of Pre-schoolers’ Proficiency in Learning English (DAPPLE) as a tool for discriminating core language deficits from difference due to bilingual language learning context. Research findings suggest that the patterns of performance showing the number of cues required to learn (Vocabulary and Sentence Structure) could be used to differentiate typically developing children from children with language impairment. Moreover, lack of retention of learning words could be a marker for language impairment. As this piece of research is exploratory in nature, DAPPLE could be developed further as a valid screening tool by examining the effects of age, language exposure to English, and non-verbal cognitive skills (Hasson et al., 2013)
Valuable information can be obtained in key areas of vocabulary, grammar and phonology within one session, which could offer direction for further management.
Pre and post-test scores, mediation scores, modifiability rating scores, a learning strategies checklist (Pena et al., 2001), classroom observations of language use, and teacher rating scales could also provide a deep insight into children’s needs. The risk of overdiagnosis (low scores on standardised tests) can be overcome by applying this information to discriminate language impairment from language difference (good modifiability may indicate difference not disorder). In the present crisis of reduced SLT services and resources, it could prove to be immensely useful in addressing clinical need in bilingual children.
Conclusion:
Considering the wealth of information obtained (particularly from mediation scores, behavioural observations and modifiability ratings), DA does have great potential in aiding classification, planning interventions and addressing child-specific needs in CLD population.
Although static test results are highly significant in determining clinical need, their limitations become apparent while assessing bilingual children. In contrast to static tests that aim to determine a measure of performance at a point in time, DA offers a systematic hierarchy of learning opportunities that could reveal underlying language abilities (Alony and Kozulin, 2007), explore learning potential, predict therapy outcomes, inform classification and aid in further management in bilingual children.
Since DA is firmly grounded in the concepts of Vygotsky and Feuerstein, it can tap on cognitive functions (metacognitive awareness) that are crucial for language learning. By further developing DAPPLE and other DA tools in the UK (and making them more accessible to SLTs who work with bilingual children), valuable data (using case studies) could be gathered for corroborative evidence. Criticisms regarding reliability and validity may no longer hold true since moderate correlations between static and dynamic measures are evident in recent research findings (Camilleri and Botting, 2013; Camilleri and Law, 2007). Further investigation to observe the long-term effects of DA and determine its predictive value is warranted.
References:
Alony, S., & Kozulin, A. (2007). Dynamic assessment of receptive language in children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 9(4), 323-331.
Camilleri, B., & Botting, N. (2013). Beyond static assessment of children’s receptive vocabulary: the dynamic assessment of word learning (DAWL).International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(5), 565-581.
Camilleri, B., & Law, J. (2013). Dynamic assessment of word learning skills of pre-school children with primary language impairment. International journal of speech-language pathology, (0), 1-10.
Camilleri, B., & Law, J. (2007). Assessing children referred to speech and language therapy: Static and dynamic assessment of receptive vocabulary.International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(4), 312-322.
De Lamo White, C., & Jin, L. (2011). Evaluation of speech and language assessment approaches with bilingual children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 46(6), 613-627.
Elliott, Julian (2003). “Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising Potential”. Educational review (Birmingham)(0013-1911), 55 (1), p. 15.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Pena, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32(4), 212.
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
Hasson, N., & Dodd, B. (2014). Planning intervention using dynamic assessments: A case study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 0265659014521642.
Hasson, N., & Botting, N. (2010). Dynamic assessment of children with language impairments: A pilot study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy,26(3), 249-272.
Hasson, N. K. (2011). Dynamic assessment and informed intervention for children with language impairment (Doctoral dissertation, City University London).
Hasson, N., & Joffe, V. (2007). The case for dynamic assessment in speech and language therapy. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23(1), 9-25.
Hernandez, M. (2013). Comparison of Performance on Static and Dynamic Language Tasks Among Typically Developing Preschoolers with Bilingual Experience (MSc Thesis, University of Mexico).
Law, J., & Camilleri, B. (2007). Dynamic assessment and its application to children with speech and language learning difficulties. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(4), 271-272.
Law, J (2007). “Dynamic assessment and its application to children with speech and language learning difficulties -editorial”. Advances in speech-language pathology (1441-7049), 9(4), p. 271.
Lidz, C. S., & Peña, E. D. (2009, May). Response to intervention and dynamic assessment: do we just appear to be speaking the same language? In Seminars in speech and language (Vol. 30, No. 02, pp. 121-133). © Thieme Medical Publishers.
Peña, E., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The Application of Dynamic Methods to Language Assessment: A Nonbiased Procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 269-280.
Peña, E. D., Reséndiz, M., & Gillam, R. B. (2007). The role of clinical judgements of modifiability in the diagnosis of language impairment. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(4), 332-345
Patterson, J. L., Rodríguez, B. L., & Dale, P. S. (2013). Response to dynamic language tasks among typically developing Latino preschool children with bilingual experience. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(1), 103-112.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265
Written by Sai Bangera, speech and language therapist, on behalf of Integrated Treatment Services. www.integratedtreatmentservices.co.uk
