Why take a dynamic approach?

The majority of schools use intelligence tests of a static nature. A static test often begins with a set of standardized instructions at the beginning of the test and is characterized by the lack of contingent feedback. Children’s scores on these types of tests reflect what a child has learnt up until that point, thus they indicate a child’s current level of performance. However, it has often been argued that static tests underestimate a child’s potential and ability; this is specifically the case for children from lower SES, minority groups, or children with linguistic difficulties. Also, the performance on these tests do not shed much light on how a child learns (or on the other hand, fails to learn), and therefore the information they supply is not very useful in guiding educational interventions.

For this reason, it seems far better if cognitive testing were to focus on a child’s underlying latent abilities, namely the potential they have, in contrast to determining what they have already learnt. Learning while testing or testing while learning is often referred to as dynamic testing or assessment (DA). The hypothesis holds that this type of testing yields more diagnostic information and is more predictive in determining one’s level of intellectual functioning, as well as determining the cognitive processes and employed strategies that one uses.

DA’s primary aim is to examine how individualized instruction or training during the course of the test session(s) results in a possible improvement of performance. These tests can differ in content, degree of standardization, and structure, although they all share one central aspect: during testing, children are trained or given hints. This helps identify the individual differences between children with regard to the progress they make while solving a variety of cognitive tasks. It seems that one’s potential is more easily revealed in a reciprocal testing environment where assistance is given as necessary, and a person’s response closely examined. Thus the focus of DA is to detect differences between people’s progression during the sessions of testing.

Assistance forms

In DA, instruction and feedback (either fixed or tailored) are given as a part of the assessment procedure. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002) have distinguished two of the most prevalent intervention formats of testing:

1. The sandwich format – a pretest is administered with no assistance, after which instruction is given to help a child increase their performance. This intervention can be carried out in either an individual or group setting, can be scripted or standardized or carried out using the clinician’s own insight. Afterwards a posttest is administered. It has been deemed as wiser not to compare pre- and posttest scores, but to look at posttest scores on their own.

2. The cake format – an individual receives help as soon as they come across a significant difficulty. This can be carried out using either a structured approach (thus using an already determined set of hints), or individualized (thus in accordance with specific perceptions and considerations of the tester).

The cake format does not offer a baseline measurement, therefore making it impossible to predict what one’s level of achievement would be had they not been offered assistance.

Dynamic tests can also differ content-wise. Some focus on f.e. reading, mathematics and spelling, whereas others on language and speech (and learning of a second language), and again others use very similar items to those found in intelligence tests, particularly inductive reasoning tasks (usually series completion, analogical reasoning with spatial-figural or verbal modalities or classification tasks).

Standardized or Clinical DA?

A different way to classify dynamic approaches is by dividing them into approaches that operate in a mainly clinical way (usually adopting a cake format), or in a standardized way (which is a more traditional scientific approach). The approach type is chosen by the tester and varies from clinician to clinician.

The Feuerstein approach contends that the value of clinical insights and difference in performance are more important than psychometric concerns and devised measures to assess one’s modifiability. Critique on this approach is, for example, that the techniques and theory behind the approach have not changed over time and therefore do not reflect current theories and thinking. Also the lack of standardization broaches problems in several areas (f.e. test administration, weak test-retest reliability, interpretation of results and low interrater reliability). Standardized dynamic testing seeks to measure learning potential in terms of maximal improvement in performance achieved by means of training. This approach uses both sandwich and cake formats, however the children are offered the same amount and kinds of instruction. Although predictive validity may increase due to this, the structured response is limiting in its value regarding educational intervention.

The Leipzig Learning Test (LLT), Analogical Reasoning Learning Test (ARLT), and the Evaluación del potential de Aprendizaje offer structured feedback (response is correct or incorrect), sometimes accompanied with very short explanations. A Dutch test (also administered in Switzerland), the Learning Potential Test for Ethnic Minorities (LEM), assesses general cognitive abilities of children from ethnic minorities with little knowledge of the host country’s language. This test also offers standardized feedback.

Another way in which a structured approach offers feedback when omissions or errors occur is by means of hints or prompts. Campione and Brown’s graduated prompts approach entails offering continuous assistance to a child until (s)he is able to answer the item correctly. This approach focusses on the amount of assistance that a child needs in order to attain the pre-specified outcomes, and in turn transfer the knowledge gained to new situations. Resing uses inductive reasoning tasks to measure the minimum amount of assistance needed for a child to succeed in independent problem solving. Number and type of hints to reach a certain criterion, the time it takes, and the posttest scores are all taken as pointers of learning potential.

Computerized approaches (f.e. adaptive computerized intelligence learning test batteries) are able to offer adaptive models to test children (difficulty of items is in accordance with a child’s performance, whereby feedback is received after every response and prompts are provided until the correct answer is given by the child). DA approaches may also be valuable in countries in which traditional intelligence test measures are scarcely administered.

What does the Dynamic Approach want to achieve?

Although it is difficult to implement DA into the classroom environment (as this is time-consuming and more expensive); DA can be used to provide useful accounts of a child’s disposition, motivation, cognitive functioning and their response in regard to different forms of adult guidance and support. The general goal is that the dynamic measures should be a complement to conventional tests (not a replacement). Most clinicians and researchers think that a strong psychometric foundation using standardized types of assistance is required if one is to use this approach. One reason for this is because there is scarce strong evidence to date (with the exception of case-studies), to support this approach and thus controlled studies measuring the benefits using dynamic assessment interventions is necessary.

Future Possibilities for DA

The future for DA lies in the development of graduated-hint structures and reciprocal scaffolding techniques, combined with further development in computerized testing. These new test instruments may be able to offer standardized and adaptive means of investigating learning and item-solving processes. The task is to accommodate the use of hints and prompts in dynamic testing within the classroom environment (thus incorporate this in the instructional strategies and processes), and so become a tool that can offer teachers important insights into a child’s intellectual functioning.