Paste DA was broadly defined in the first chapter as an approach that measures a child’s potential to learn rather than the static level of achievement. DA also consists of a range of frameworks and models. All frameworks within DA intend to teach within the assessment to measure how a child will respond to intervention (Hasson, 2018). DA emerged from assessments of intelligence, cognition, and psychological tests that have a similar approach to IQ assessments (Crystal, 1979, 1982; Crystal, Fletcher, and Garman 1989, Camilleri et al. 2013, Hasson 2018). This study intends to explore the possibility of DA being beneficial to an additional population who have LI as a primary disorder but also have a secondary difficulty. These children are either CLD or SLCN (see glossary). In order to address this concern a brief history about DA theories will be explored in the next section.
Vygotsky (1978) believed that a child’s comprehension is reached at early stages of development and higher level of comprehension is a result from interactions with others. In early years of development, a child is able to expand his/her knowledge further by collaborating with a more skilled individual. This model is only used in therapy interventions, but it is not the approach of traditional cognitive and language assessments in SLT practice (Haywood and Lidz,2009). Vygotsky stated that learning process and development is achieved if we focus on the process instead of the outcome (Yildirim,2008). This means when assessment is focused on especially during early stages of development, the child will benefit from therapy. Thus, Vygotsky provided the foundational basis of DA which includes the zone of proximal development ZPD (see glossary) and reinforces different methods within DA (Hasson,2011). In this way, DA enables the assessment of cognitive processes, i.e. ‘problem solving, planning, and thinking’ (Haywood and Lidz, 2007).
Vygotsky is also recognized with the theory that learning in children is not purely an innate process but is rather mediated through cultural transmission from others who are part of the child’s environment. Therefore, learning is initiated with an external stimulus from the child’s surroundings, an adult who will initiate, provide instructions and mediate information to the developing child. These external stimuli’s have to be actively internalized and integrated in the child. As a result, the child is unable to remain a passive recipient of knowledge, but instead would create these new meanings to their own skills and language acquisition (Hasson,2011).
It could be argued that there are factors that influence language acquisition. These factors are either environmental and/or genetic. As a result, some children have LI and additional disorders. Therefore, performance on standardized assessments will presumably be lower than a child’s actual potential. Low scores are due to factors that influence the child’s performance on static tests.
A study by Beech et al (1993) categorized each factor as the following:
Environmental factors:
• Hearing impairment(s)
• Bilingual background
• Environmental deficiency (Low SES)
• Family members are not users of expressive language. Over reliance on gestures and nonverbal communication
Genetic factors:
• Inherited hearing loss
• Congenital learning difficulties and disorders
• General or specific neurological disorders
(Beech et. al, 1993)
Evidence shows that children who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) and children with environmental and genetic influences, can be misdiagnosed on standardized assessments. The reason could be a minor misunderstanding that mislabels certain children with LI (Peña and Iglesias, 1992). A study by Camilleri and Law (2007) supports the previous statement. The authors confirm factors that hinder performance could be poor attention span, low level of experience, shyness, and cultural or language dissimilarities may impede with the accuracy of assessment results.
An example of a DA method is rather than assessing a child about using an “incorrect tense in syntax”. A SLT examines this error by asking the child if he/she comprehends the given task, questions about the assessment, and views about the overall task. An essential question to ask in DA is if the child comprehends the language used in the assessment (Hasson,2018). It is a simple approach that an SLT might neglect in early stages of assessment if this approach is implemented it will help clinicians avoid certain children reach plateau in therapy.
Target Population for DA
A study by Camilleri and Law (2014) investigated preschool children with language difficulties. The researchers developed “DA of word learning skills of preschool children with primary language impairment”. The authors suggest that children who are not identified with language difficulties at early stages of language development, and do not seek SLT continue to have language problems through adolescence and adulthood. Moreover, the study shows that children who are diagnosed with LI and start therapy before the age of five are more likely to enroll in a mainstream school setting. Therefore, it is important to assess the child’s language in his/her earlier years to seek intervention for language impairment for better quality of life.
Other authors agree that children who are diagnosed before the age of five and seek intervention are more likely to increase their language acquisition and attend mainstream schools (Haywood and Lidz 2007, Hasson and Joffee 2007, Martin 2012, Olswang et al. 2013, Peterson 2017). Therefore, there is no definite age for assessing children using an interactive approach it is only recommended to assess at early stages of development.
DA can be used on a wide range of typical and clinical populations. It may be used with adults with a range of cognitive and linguistic difficulties. DA tests are not norm specified to a certain population, they can be used on clinical groups who standardized tests do not apply (Hasson,2018). Recent research has specified that groups of children that do not benefit from static tests could be:
• Hearing losses
• Learning difficulties
• Autism Spectrum disorder
• Behavioral and emotional difficulties
• Attention Deficits (i.e. ADHD)
• Culturally diverse children (bilingual and multilingual children)
(Hasson,2018)
Therefore, it could be argued that the assessment of language difficulties is not the only factor that influences the child’s potential to learn. Secondary factors such as the ones mentioned above are what clinicians face in day to day practice. Why is there little research about this topic? It is important to explore and discusses DA in a different light to give clinicians alternative or additional assessment procedures when facing difficulties using static tests, or merely us DA in conjunction with standardized assessments instead.
However, evidence shows that a child requires to have some language to be able to respond to prompt questions within the assessment. Questions are not scripted in DA therefore a SLT can simplify t language for a specific child, or use gestures, pictures or symbols to communicate language. The assessor may also choose suitable language goals for the assessment, prompts and can be tailored to a child’s age to be age appropriate. Studies show that children as young as three could be assessed. But, questions about metalinguistic (what’s the sound on the end? What word would you use?) and metacognitive questions (How did you know?) is restricted (Hasson, 2018).
What are the main elements of DA?
DA is a non-biased measure of assessing language (Peña,1992). The specific mental processes that Haywood and Lidz (2009) propose are suitable targets for DA which include: attention, perception, memory, language, cognition, and metacognition. Each of these aspects reveals innate capacities of which humans are born with. However, each target is acquired when exposed to new experiences and develops into executive metacognitive functions. Motivation is an element of meta-cognition and it includes a non-intellective emotional process. For example, if a child is struggling with attention the focus of mediation would be “maintaining the child’s attention”. The authors also propose that DA is a resource to investigate and explore the type of similarity between the processing demands of the assessment and the processing resources the child would contribute to a task.
Other authors who explored DA would agree that DA model’s main elements is grounded from working brain functions that are related to school systems and procedures. Each of which is adaptable to assessment and related to performance in learning environments (Haywood and Lidz 2009). (see fig. 3.0).
Main Elements of DA
Working Brain Systems Elements of Each System
Memory
Short term, working, long term schema, paired associate
Attention Vigilance, sustained, selective, divided, altering
Fine Motor Finger function
Oral Language Phoneme, rhyme, syllable, lexical, syntax, discourse
Orthographic Coding, imaging
Executive functions Planning, monitoring, organization, regulation, metacognition
Motivation Attribution, goals, proactive strategies, success history
Cognition Abstraction, reasoning and problem solving, constructive processes
Reading Accuracy, rate, comprehension
Writing Handwriting, spelling, composition
Source: Berninger and Abbot (1994), Haywood and Lidz (2009) (Fig. 3.0)
These processes are all documented within brain functions and are directly associated to acquisition of new knowledge and skills. The authors propose a DA model that reflects a response to treatment through development of growth curves (Haywood and Lidz 2009).
Can DA be used for a specific population?
Children from different cultural backgrounds benefit from DA and children who receive low scores on static tests, specifically narrative skills. The authors defined culturally diverse children as children who have low language ability, and children without a language impairment, only a language difference (Camilleri and Law, 2014). The assessment mostly focuses on children with LI. However, additional disorders and backgrounds are a secondary element that has not been addressed yet. Research has discussed assessing children with disorders other than language. But, would DA benefit children with LI and secondary difficulties? In order to answer that question. We must explore DA frameworks and theories.
DA Frameworks and Models
The initial basis of DA emerged from Vygotsky. Vygotsky (1986) stressed on the importance of roles of others in the environment, who present, instruct and mediate meanings to a developing child. These external instructions have to be actively internalized and integrated in the child, who cannot remain a passive recipient of information, but rather involved in making sense of meanings on his/her own (Hasson, 2018).
Vygotsky described the development of a child’s thinking as an ever-changing system of mental functions. The sources of this change and development are experimental learning, formal learning, and mediation through other people. The more basic concepts are learnt by experience and are gradually refined and elevated by formal teaching and through the mediation of others. Usually parents, carers, siblings, peers, and teachers (Hasson,2018).
Another scholar named Reuven Feuerstein believed that all individuals have the ability to modify themselves. Feuerstein developed a theory named “structural cognitive modifiability’ (Feuerstein et al.2003). The goal of his clinical work is to determine how to effectively implement that change. His focus was about the type of assistance that is necessary for an individual to attain new skills. He believed that facilitating significant change is achieved by the type of stimuli and quality of interaction with individuals. Therefore, it is not enough to introduce stimuli to a developing child, even when choosing mindfully, except when there’s high-quality input to structure their learning and language acquisition (Lidz,1983). Feuerstein labelled this high-quality input as “mediated learning experience” (MLE), an interaction between children and those who structure and interpret their experiences of the world (Hasson and Joffe, 2007). Feuerstein and his followers have described in detail what qualities an interaction must have in order to be described as truly mediational (see Haywood and Lidz 2007).
Followers of this approach (Lidz and Elliot,2000; Miller, Gillam and Peña,2001) employ the test-teach-retest model by mediating during the teaching phase which what is called MLE. Feuerstein’s mediated learning theory (SCM) is also fundamental to The Learning Propensity Assessment Device (LPAD) that is used in DA models (see glossary).
The common theme in theories and frameworks of DA is the input of assessors and more experienced individuals into learning process of a child. DA models view this as learning procedure of a developing child. There is various method of measuring learning, but in input is continuous within the assessment process. Hence, the interaction between a child and a SLT is generally a role for mediation within the assessment process which is an important aim for assessment and intervention. However, SLTs are persuaded to assess in the most artificial and unnatural way. no feedback or cues to are given to the child during assessment. In practice, standardized assessment doesn’t facilitate a child’s best performance, yet this is what is generally used in day to day practice. Thus, studies have argued that standardized language tests have low reliability (Dockrell, 2001).
How is DA carried out?
Some children will comprehend instructions easily, implement them and succeed, while others are unable to succeed even with mediation (i.e. a child’s skills are not within his/her ZPD). Therefore, DA focuses on this aspect that a child could lack from, the procedure is to calculate the number of prompts given, then the clinician scores the prompts. The assessors purpose is to determine how each child processes language and find the most suitable method to enable his/her improvement in language. This could be facilitated through a more personalized, mediated procedure that reveals qualitative information for intervention. Or an SLT could rate the intensity of mediation provided to the child, or the responsiveness of the child to therapy, by using a rating scale. Studies show that a mix and match of these procedures are advised, or a combination depending on the child’s case (Haywood and Lidz, 2007, Hasson and Joffee 2007, Hasson 2018).
DA Frameworks: Key Theories That influenced DA of Language
Graduated prompts
Based on Vygotsky’s ZPD. Children who benefit from mediation within a task show readiness to learn compared to children with less readiness. Children with less readiness have a smaller ZPD and need more detailed instructions to do well in a given task (Olswang et. al, 1992). Campione and Brown (1987) calculated the ZPD by quantifying the amount of mediation a child required to fulfill a task. The authors presented a task or a problem to the client then asked them to solve it. If the child did not succeed, a clue was given, and more clues were granted when necessary, for as long as the child faced difficulty during the task. The hints began more generally and became specific while using clues until the target was reached and the problem was solved. When the assessment was complete the authors counted the number of prompts given. They then presented another task and repeated the process to analyze what the child acquired from previous tasks and fewer prompts would be necessary to reach the target.
The concept of providing minimum support in prompts during an assessment is different from conventional methods for language acquisition in which the target is initially modelled for the client. The procedure aims towards pursuing the child to individually solve problems, with minimum assistance. An SLT has the option to slowly build up to the most directive cue, which is a model for the child to imitate. If a child requires this level of prompting, the assessor will find that the child needs rigorous intervention in order to learn and reach a goal (Hasson and Joffe 2007, Haywood and Lidz 2007, Martin 2010, Hasson 2018).
Therefore, it should be noted that in this model the assessor is responsible of evaluating the task in detail and create a hierarchy of prompts from least to most helpful.
Mediational Intervention
Feuerstein’s approach focuses more on clinical aspects of DA. The scholar developed a battery of assessments of cognitive functions one of them is the Learning Propensity Assessment Device (LPAD) (e.g. asking the child to recall information) (see glossary for definition). Feuerstein adapted standardized methods and adopted a more interactive process. These processes are based on three important components: the child, clinician, and task (Feuerstein et al. 1987, Lidz 1991, Hasson and Joffe 2007). Most tools in language tests use a test- teach- retest format where the teaching stage includes different methods to prompt the client which involves mediational intervention. Therefore, it could be said that clinicians in practice are trained in a similar way to deal with uncooperative children in a similar way.
Feuerstein’s processes involve mediation in different sections within the assessment. For example, when a clinician models a “pre-test mediation” it helps the child familiarize with assessment materials, as well as teaching prerequisite information. The most recent description of mediation during assessment is the following:
“Managing behavior and mediation after the test, providing feedback and encouraging successively from repetition and practice, with or without explicit feedback, which others provide additional learning opportunities. In this way, the battery allows for probing of responsiveness to different models of learning and cueing, enabling the assessor to gain a composite profile of the learner’s abilities.” (Hasson 2018)
Some might argue that there is a similarity between the graduated prompts model and Feuerstein’s mediational intervention. But both models are constructed with the same consistency. Models start from broad to least instructional cues, to more precise and directive. Therefore, Feuerstein et al. (2002) was convinced to label this measure as “Required Mediated Intervention” (RMI).
Many researchers value Feuerstein’s test procedures as it contains valuable principles that lead towards individualized and thorough information about individuals needs for support (Tzuriel and Caspi 1992, Dockrell and McShane 1993, Haywood 1993, Stringer 1997, Haywood Nelson 1998, Elliot 2000, Dockrell 2001, Lauchlan and Carrigan 2005, Lidz 1991 and 2003, Camilleri and Law 2007 and 2014). Thus, some SLTs will find DA procedures familiar and already use several methods in practice.
Test- Train- Retest
Early DA assessments traditionally appear to have addressed the dilemma of equal opportunities. Early DA assessments aim to provide individuals from different cultural backgrounds an equal opportunity as others in their applications for school and employment (Budoff 1987). The concept of this theory is an initial baseline of performance. Individuals were assessed, then trained for basic skills they require to have (some don’t have these skills at all), and then individuals were retested.
“High scores on the retest were considered more fair evaluations of ability than pretest. Which reflected both ability and experience. The procedures also gave a rise to gain scores the difference between pretest and post test scores which reflected the individual’s ability to learn or benefit from training in this way, potential to learn was identified.” (Budoff et al. 1974, Budoff 1987, Lidz 1983, Haywood and Lidz 2007, Birjandi et. al, 2012, Hasson 2018)
This is what SLT’s usually carry out in assessments of stimulability, to detect difficulties in standardized assessments, or a method that is used as a pilot for therapy. This framework is also beneficial for trial therapy to identify if a child progresses using this method. The test- train- retest framework is a golden method that most SLT’s use in research and practice. Test-train-retest model is widely used because it is more practical. Trial procedures are considered to be standardized and summarized in the test. It is practical, more convenient, and less time consuming (Birjandi et. al, 2012, Hasson 2018).
Feedback
Feedback was developed by Carlson and Wiedl (1992) and labelled as “Testing the Limits”. In their study the authors experimented with test materials by presenting different levels of feedback to the client. Contrary to static assessments where no feedback is given what so ever (Barjandi et al, 2012). However, the scholars discovered that when thorough feedback was discussed to the client during a task in a test, the client was able to improve his/her performance a succeed on tasks. Hence, when very detailed feedback is offered to the child, as a result the child is able to explain the reason, way, and for using alternative verbal strategies.
The outcome of their study showed greater improvement in individuals performances. The authors noted that a good learner is an individual that is able to transfer feedback from the clinician to the next task on the assessment without prompting from the SLT.
Years later, Peña and her colleagues, adapted the concept of feedback into a term they labeled “clinical interview” (Gutierrez-Clellen and Peña 2001). In this study the authors focused on bilingual populations compared to previous studies who focused more on monolingual children, they integrated the “culture” element in their studies which is something important in this era. After the assessment was completed, the clinician created questions to prompt the child to reflect what he/she learnt as well as provide an explanation for his/her answers. The results cannot be scored because the procedure was very dynamic, however other scholars who explored this study concluded that the procedure provided useful qualitative information that could be beneficial for intervention has good validity (Hasson,2018).
Olswang and Bain (1996) also applied graduated prompts procedure and found high correlation between dynamic assessment and mean length of utterance (MLU) across the study period. The results of the study highlighted DA procedures and found that DA can differentiate between those children who have potential for immediate change without intervention or less intervention from those who require intensive programs.
In summary, there are common features in many DA procedures that investigate different elements of language. All DA procedures main objective is to investigate metalinguistics and language acquisition. Most DA procedures stem from, Vygotsky (1978) and Feuerstein et al. (1987) frameworks where the assessor provides prompts and cues to measure a child’s readiness to learn, understand how the child process and retains information. The benefits of this approach that its centered towards the child, the approach is individualized based on the child’s responses to cues and prompts to maximize the child’s learning potential. This chapter also explored the foundational basis of DA’s key theories that inspired researchers to explore DA in language.
To build up on this chapter, the next chapter will focus more on DA of language in the field of SLT. A critical synthesis will be carried out using different tools and the “barriers to uptake model” will be applied throughout the chapter. As well as, a brief literature review of DA of language key studies will be critically discussed and compared to static tests in the next chapter.