Policy Implications of Psychological Assessment of Minority Children

Utley, Cheryl A.; Haywood, H. Carl; Masters, John C.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4392-2_19

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Standardized testing procedures have been criticized for many decades not only in regard to deaf children (e.g., Keane, 1987) but also, more generally, in regard to children whose cultural, economic, or social backgrounds differ from those of mainstream children (Bailey 8c Harbin, 1980;Haney, 1981;Feuerstein, Rand, 8c Hoffman, 1979;Gupta 8c Coxhead, 1988: Haywood, 1977Lidz, 1987;Mercer, 1977;Missiuna & Samuels, 1988;Tzuriel & Haywood, 1992;Vernon, 1979;Utley, Haywood, 8c Masters, 1992). Such criticism has led to the development of novel approaches of interactive/dynamic assessment (Brown 8c Ferrara, 1985;Budoff, 1987;Carlson 8c Wiedl, 1979Coxhead & Gupta, 1988;Guthke 8c Wingenfeld, 1992;Feuerstein et al, 1979;Haywood 8c Switzky, 1974;Lidz, 1987;Tzuriel, 1991;Tzuriel 8c Klein, 1985Vygotsky, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Cognitive Modifiability and Cognitive Performance of Deaf and Hearing Preschool Children

Tzuriel

Caspi

1992

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to (a) assess the cognitive modifiability of preschool deaf and hearing children using dynamic and static-conventional instruments, and (b) compare the factorial pattern of the cognitive measures in both groups. The sample was composed of 26 deaf and 26 pair-matched hearing preschool children from 4·1 to 6·3 years of age. All of the children were given, individually, Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM), Children's Analogical Thinking Modifiability (CATM), the Picture Analogy Test (PAT), and the Analogies subtest from the Snijders-Oomen Nonverbal Intelligence Test (SON), and were initially matched on a motor integration scale. No significant differences were found between the two groups on RCPM, Analogies (SON), or PAT. On the CATM, a dynamic assessment instrument, the deaf children scored lower than the hearing children at pretest but improved their scores more than the hearing children when taught; both groups scored similarly after teaching. Results are interpreted according to the Structural Cognitive Modifiability and Mediated Learning Experience theory (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979) and the unique communication barriers of deaf children.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Cognitive Modifiability and Cognitive Performance of Deaf and Hearing Preschool Children

Tzuriel

Caspi

1992

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, many believe it should not be used for these "high-stakes" purposes. Traditional assessment has been criticized for underestimating general ability and lacking sensitivity toward so-called disadvantaged students (e.g., Peña, Quinn, & Iglesias, 1992;Utley, Haywood, & Masters, 1992) and students with disabilities (e.g., Lidz, 1987). Ironically, traditional assessment is often used to identify and place low-achieving, at-risk students.…”

Section: Dynamic Assessment Vs Statistic Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2016

MJLTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Lastly, traditional assessment does not provide information for designing potentially effective instruction (Bransford et al, 1987;Haywood & Brown, 1990;Utley, Haywood, & Masters, 1992). Static assessments, in which children are expected to answer questions and solve problems without help, contain little information about performance in typical situations in which teaching and learning occur (Haywood & Brown).…”

Section: Shortcomings Of Traditional Approaches To Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%