How these subjective feelings of giving way affect actual functional performance or sport participation remains an area of debate. While it seems inherent that those with FAI will have "functional" deficits, this has not been consistently reported in the literature.Developed with the intentions of tracking rehabilitation and determining return-to-play criteria, functional performance testing provides an unbiased means of measuring functional ability. 10Most of the research on functional performance testing relates to the knee and, more specifically, to testing individuals with anterior cruciate ligament-deficient and reconstructed knees. 4,12,16,20,[24][25][26]28,29,34,37 Functional performance tests range from general lower extremity tests to unilateral hopping tests. 1,2,4,6,12,[16][17][18]20,22,24,[29][30][31][32][33]37 Limited studies exist evaluating the presence of functional deficits in patients with FAI. 7,9,10,21,27,39 Even with the small amount of research available, the studies present with conflicting results, adding to the confusion regarding the nature of this condition. Studies that used general lower extremity tests, such as the 6-meter shuttle run 9,27 and cocontraction test, 9 found no performance deficits in participants with FAI. Of 6 studies that used unilateral L ateral ankle sprains, which are primarily caused by an inversion stress to the joint, account for 34% of all injuries in athletics. 13 Additionally, up to 40% of individuals report a sense of instability after an initial sprain that may lead to recurrent instability. 15 Functional ankle instability (FAI) is described as a feeling of "giving way" in the ankle joint, [8][9][10][11]15,19,35 which may or may not occur in the presence of laxity of the lateral ligaments. 8,19,21,27 t StuDy DeSign: Experimental laboratory testing using a cross-sectional design. t MethoDS: Sixty college students volunteered for this study. Thirty participants with unilateral ankle instability were placed in the FAI group and 30 participants with no history of ankle injuries were placed in the control group. The FAI group was subsequently further divided to indicate those that reported giving way during the functional test (FAI-GW) and those that did not (FAI-NGW). Time to complete each test was recorded and the mean of 3 trials for each test were used for statistical analysis. To identify performance differences, we used 4 mixed-design 2-way (side-by-group) ANOVAs, 1 for each hop test. A Tukey post hoc test was completed on all significant findings.t reSuLtS: We identified a significant side-bygroup interaction for all 4 functional performance tests (P.05). Specifically, for each functional performance test, the FAI limb performed significantly worse than the contralateral uninjured limb in the FAI-GW group. Additionally, the FAI limb in the FAI-GW group performed worse than the FAI limb in the FAI-NGW group, and the matched limb in the control group in 3 of the 4 functional performance tests.t ConCLuSion: We found that functional performance deficits wer...

The authors report on a mixed-methods review of 24 studies that explores the predictive validity of dynamic assessment (DA). For 15 of the studies, they conducted quantitative analyses using Pearson's correlation coefficients. They descriptively examined the remaining studies to determine if their results were consistent with findings from the group of 15. The authors implemented analyses in five phases: They compared the predictive validity of traditional tests and DA, compared two forms of DA, examined the predictive validity of DA by student population, investigated various outcome measures to determine whether they mediate DA's predictive validity, and assessed the value added of DA over traditional testing. Results indicated superior predictive validity for DA when feedback is not contingent on student response, when applied to students with disabilities rather than at-risk or typically achieving students, and when independent DA and criterion-referenced tests were used as outcomes instead of norm-referenced tests and teacher judgment.

The purpose of this study was to examine the construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment (DA) of decoding learning. Students (N = 318) were assessed in the fall of first grade on an array of instruments that were given in hopes of forecasting responsiveness to reading instruction. These instruments included DA as well as one-point-in-time (static) measures of early alphabetic knowledge, rapid automatized naming (RAN), phonemic awareness, oral vocabulary, listening comprehension, attentive behavior, and hyperactive or impulsive behavior. An IQ test was administered in spring of second grade. Measures of reading outcomes administered in spring of first grade were accuracy and fluency of word identification skills and reading comprehension. Factor analysis using principal axis factor extraction indicated that DA loaded on a first factor that also included language abilities and IQ, which the authors refer to as the “language, IQ, and DA” factor. It was relatively distinct from two additional factors: (a) “speeded alphabetic knowledge and RAN” and (b) “task-oriented behavior.” A three-level (children nested within classroom; classrooms nested within school) random intercept model with fixed effects predictors suggested that DA differed from word attack in predicting future reading skill and that DA was a significant predictor of responsiveness to instruction, contributing unique variance to end-of-first-grade word identification and reading comprehension beyond that explained by other well-established predictors of reading development.

No abstract

We reviewed eight studies that described learning differences between students with learning disabilities (LD) and students with mild mental retardation (MMR). A total of 639 students, 6-20 years old, participated in these studies. Study authors examined students' inductive reasoning and their performance during guided inquiry and more lengthy interventions in reading and math. Students with LD and students with MMR were assessed in terms of learning ease, pre-to posttreatment gains, and the maintenance, transfer, and application of knowledge acquisition. Students with LD statistically significantly outperformed students with MMR on both inductive reasoning and guided inquiry tasks. They made reliably larger gains following interventions in reading and math. Across all learning tasks and contexts, students with LD displayed greater consistency transferring and applying conceptual knowledge to new tasks. Regarding maintenance, results were mixed. Implications for categorical instruction are discussed.