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

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.

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
• 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
• 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
• 4 Plante E. Criteria for SLI: the Stark and Tallal legacy and beyond.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;  41 951-957
• 5 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub L No. 108–446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. 
• 6 Feuerstein R. The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques. Baltimore, MD; University Park Press 1979
• 7 Feuerstein R, Miller R, Rand Y, Jensen M. Can evolving techniques better measure cognitive change?.  J Spec Educ. 1981;  15 201-219
• 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
• 9 Vygotsky L S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press 1978
• 10 Vygotsky L S. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press 1986
• 11 Haywood H C, Lidz C S. Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications. New York, NY; Cambridge University Press 2007
• 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
• 13 Lidz C S, Elliott J G. Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. New York, NY; Elsevier Science 2000
• 14 Lidz C S. Practitioner's Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York, NY; Guilford Press 1991
• 15 Fuchs D, Fuchs L S, Compton D L. Dynamic Assessment for Young At-Risk Readers [Unpublished test]. Nashville, TN; Vanderbilt University 2007
• 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
• 17 Spector J. Predicting progress in beginning reading: dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness.  J Educ Psychol. 1992;  84 353-363
• 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
• 19 Lidz C S. Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. New York, NY; Guilford Press 1987
• 20 Hasson N, Joffe V. The case for dynamic assessment in speech and language therapy.  Child Lang Teach Ther. 2007;  23 9-25
• 21 Miller L, Gillam R B, Peña E D. Dynamic Assessment and Intervention: Improving Children's Narrative Skills. Austin, TX; PRO-ED 2001
• 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
• 23 Burton V J, Watkins R V. Measuring word learning: dynamic versus static assessment of kindergarten vocabulary.  J Commun Disord. 2007;  40 335-356
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 28 Kozulin A. Sociocultural theory and the mediated learning experience.  Sch Psychol Int. 2002;  23 7-35
• 29 Lidz C S. Mediated learning experience (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment.  Sch Psychol Int. 2002;  23 68-84
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 35 Dunn L, Dunn L. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3rd ed. Circle Pines, MN; American Guidance Service 1997
• 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
• 37 Olswang L, Bain B. When to recommend intervention.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1991;  22 255-263
• 38 Olswang L, Bain B. Assessment information for predicting upcoming change in language production.  J Speech Hear Res. 1996;  39 414-423
• 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
• 40 Glaspey A, Stoel-Gammon C. A dynamic approach to phonological assessment.  Adv Speech Lang Pathol. 2007;  9 286-296
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 44 Sternberg R J. Raising the achievement of all students: teaching for successful intelligence.  Educ Psychol Rev. 2002;  14 383-393
• 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
• 46 Sternberg R J, Grigorenko E L. Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. New York, NY; Cambridge University Press 2002
• 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
• 48 Marston D. Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns.  J Learn Disabil. 2005;  38 539-544
• 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
• 50 Elksnin L K. Identification of learning disabilities: research to practice.  Psychol Sch. 2004;  41 581-585
• 51 Grigorenko E L. Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: two sides of one coin.  J Learn Disabil.. 2009;  42(2) 111-132
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 56 Hilden K R, Pressley M. Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction.  Read Writ Q. 2007;  23 51-75
• 57 Pressley M. Cognitive Strategy Instruction That Really Improves Children's Academic Performance. Cambridge, MA; Brookline Books 1990
• 58 Kovaleski J F. Response to intervention: considerations for research and systems change.  School Psych Rev. 2007;  36 638-646
• 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
• 60 Caffrey E, Fuchs D, Fuchs L S. The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: a review.  J Spec Educ. 2008;  41 254-270
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 64 Ehren B J, Nelson N W. The responsiveness to intervention approach and language impairment.  Top Lang Disord. 2005;  25 120-131
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 70 Tomblin J B. A normativist account of language-based learning disability.  Learn Disabil Res Pract. 2006;  21 8-18
• 71 Haywood H C, Brooks P, Burns S. Bright Start: Cognitive Curriculum for Young Children. Watertown, MA; Charles Bridge 1992
• 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
• 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