This study explored using dynamic assessment to differentiate children with language differences versus language disorders among low-SES Latino and African American children. 50 children were given pretests measuring labeling and description skills. Those scoring low on labeling received mediation and retesting. As hypothesized, children scored better on description than labeling initially. Following mediation, non-disabled children improved more on retesting than those with language disorders, showing dynamic assessment can differentiate the two groups when standardized tests cannot. The results support using culturally sensitive and modifiable tests like dynamic assessment for language evaluations.

1. THE APPLICATION OF DYNAMIC
METHODS TO
LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT: A
NONBIASED PROCEDURE
Elizabeth Pena
Rosemary Quinn
Aquiles Iglesias

2. What is Dynamic Assessment?
• Dynamic assessment is a method of assessment
whereby a student’s ability to learn a skill (i.e., a
student’s modifiability) is measured after a teaching
phase led by an evaluator.
• Dynamic assessment is a practice that may be
considered within the context of a comprehensive
special education evaluation.

3. Quick Read
The rationale for using dynamic assessment during an
initial evaluation for special education is to:
a. address the bias of standardized testing
b. aid in determining whether student needs are from a
lack of exposure or due to cultural or linguistic
differences.
c. determine the need for specially designed
instruction and inform intervention

4. RATIONALE FOR THE PRESENT STUDY
Low socioeconomic status (SES) Latino-American and African-
American children enrolled in Head Start programs are often
described as educationally at risk. This label is frequently
ascribed as a function of the poor academic achievement
of most members of these populations.

5. RATIONALE FOR THE PRESENT STUDY
One area in which these children often perform below the
national average is on standardized tests. Frequently, these
children are described as having poor vocabulary, a word-
finding deficit, or a vocabulary (language) delay. Many of these
tests, however, are based on labeling tasks, and one-word
labeling of objects is not emphasized in the same manner or
frequency across all cultural/linguistic groups.

6. Objectives of the Study
The purposes of this study were to
(a) explore the match/mismatch between home demands and
the test tasks of labeling versus description and
(b) demonstrate the efficacy of a dynamic approach to
language assessment in differentiating nondisabled
children with language differences (academically at risk)
from those with language disorders.

7. METHOD
Subject:
- Three Head Start classes with 20 students
- children ranged in age from 3-7 to 4-9 years
- these children were exposed to both English and
Spanish at home and in the community
- 26 boys and 34 girls
- 50 sample
Instrument:
- two standardized test instruments
- Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
(EOWPVT) and the Comprehension subtest (CSSB) of
the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

8. METHOD
The EOWPVT elicits single-word labels, using black and white
line drawings. The items on the test reflect vocabulary
commonly used in preschool, kindergarten, and through the
sixth grade. The CSSB is mainly a comprehension and
description task: Children are asked to point to body parts,
answer questions regarding the use of common objects, and
respond to process (why) questions.

9. METHOD
Hypotheses
1. Children on average would perform well on the CSSB but
not on the pretest EOWPVT (EOWPVT1).
2. The CSSB would be a better indicator of PLD than the
EOWPVT
3. Following mediation, it was expected that posttest scores
on the EOWPVT (EOWPVT2) would be higher for the
nondisabled children with language differences than the
PLD children.

10. METHOD
Pretest (Static Assessment)
The following was the protocol for the pretest:
A. Labeling—Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
B. Description—Comprehension subtest of the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scale
C. Phonology—Assessment of Phonologic Disabilities
Screening (Iglesias, 1978)
D. Classroom interaction observation (CIO)
E. Hearing screening

11. METHOD
Teach (Mediation)
Mediation consisted of two 20-minute interventions in the
classroom in small groups. This time period is realistic in
terms of the attention span of young children. Although the
tasks were similar, the specific interactions varied depending
on individual children's responses. Tasks consisted of stories,
classification, and puzzle completion.

12. METHOD
Posttest
After mediation, the EOWPVT was administered to most of the
children (n = 48). At the end of the school year, a sample of the
children (n = 27) were tested again on the EOWPVT
(EOWPVT3).
Scoring
Each child was tested individually, and their responses were recorded
in the language(s) of the child.
Results of the EOWPVT and CSSB were scored following instructions
contained in the respective administration manuals. For the EOWPVT,
standardized scores below 70 fell more sharply than those above 70
as a result of the test author's smoothing the means and standard
deviations. Standard scores below 70 were recalculated according to
Witte (1989).

13. RESULTS
ANOVA results confirmed the prediction that the children would
experience less difficulty with the description task. Examination of
individual cases showed that 9 (18%) of the children scored within 1
standard deviation from the mean on the EOWPVT 1, while 30 (60%)
of the children scored within 1 standard deviation from the mean on
the CSSB. The CSSB result supports the second hypothesis
regarding nondisabled children in that the CSSB is more sensitive in
differentiating between nondisabled and PLD children. This is
consistent with the claim that a test matching the values and
experiences of children is a more valid measure of language ability.

14. RESULTS
The third hypothesis addressed the efficacy of dynamic language
assessment procedures. PLD children, on average, were less
responsive to mediation and required a more intense effort on the
part of the examiner to induce change.

15. RESULTS
The results are interpreted as further validating the constructs
underlying dynamic assessment. This also has implications for
intervention. Although the pretest means were very similar, making it
virtually impossible to separate the nondisabled and PLD children on
the basis of labeling skills, the posttest scores were very different for
the two groups. The nondisabled children's average score on the
posttest was 21 points higher than that of the PLD children.
Furthermore, the PLD children showed a much smaller gain (+1.88 vs.
+ 13.93 for nondisabled) from pretest to posttest on the EOWPVT
after mediation, which seems to confirm the hypothesis of lower
modifiability for the PLD group .

16. T H A N K Y O U !
G O D B L E S S 😊