National survey of school psychologists regarding use of dynamic assessment and other nontraditional assessment techniques

Abstract

A national survey investigating the use of dynamic assessment and other nontraditional assessment techniques among school psychologists (N ϭ 226) was conducted. Results of the survey indicated that 42% of respondents were at least "somewhat familiar" with dynamic assessment. However, of those familiar with dynamic assessment, only 39% reported using the techniques once a year or more. The most frequently endorsed reasons for not using dynamic assessment (if familiar with it) were lack of knowledge and time restraints. Learning disabled students were the population of students most often evaluated using dynamic assessment and the dynamic assessment was most often used to determine processing strengths and weaknesses. The majority of those familiar with dynamic assessment became so through independent reading. Only 10% reported learning about dynamic assessment through course work. In response to questions regarding assessment techniques most often used with minority students the majority of respondents reported using traditional assessment tools including the WISC-III (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition), BINET IV (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition), or KABC (Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children). Overall, the results of the survey suggest that although the population is becoming increasingly more diverse and changes in PL94-142 (Public Law 94-142) demand functional assessments, school psychologists continue to rely heavily upon traditional assessment techniques to address referral concerns of all students. This may in large part be due to weaknesses in graduate training programs.

The Psychological Assessment of Children with Learning Difficulties

“…It is something of a paradox that, despite the repeated attacks upon IQ testing, its use by educational psychologists in the UK and the United States (Haney & Evans, 1999) appears to be little diminished. Criticisms centre upon the absence of theoretical frameworks for many of the most popular tests (Flanagan & McGrew, 1997); concerns that IQ tests may be biased against culturally and linguistically diverse populations (Lopez, 1997); the failure of such measures to address 'real-life' attainments (Ceci, 1990); and their apparent inability to inform teachers and parents on how best to address learning difficulties (Reschly, 1997).…”

Revisiting Core Issues in Dynamic Assessment

“…Four surveys, conducted within the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland evidence similar results in terms of the recognition of dynamic assessment as manner of assessment as well as the utilisation of this method within practice (Deutsch & Reynolds, 2000;Haney & Evans, 1999;Lidz, 1992a;Raftery & Murphy, 2009). Findings conclude that although there is varying awareness of dynamic assessment it is practiced less often.…”

Dynamic assessment precursors: Soviet ideology, and Vygotsky

“…Possibly this has resulted in more resistance to this method from mainstream assessors currently more at ease with typical intelligence tests. This conclusion is substantiated only from what has been gleaned from the literature as well as from results from studies dealing with dynamic assessment awareness surveys (Deutsch & Reynolds, 2000;Haney & Evans, 1999;Lidz, 1992a;Murphy & Maree, 2008).…”