Using learning potential to evaluate children with specific language impairment

  1. Robles Bello, María Auxiliadora 1
  2. Calero García, María Dolores 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Jaén
    info

    Universidad de Jaén

    Jaén, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0122p5f64

  2. 2 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2013

Número: 16

Páginas: 1-11

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2013.77 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

This article presents research on a learning potential assessment that was administered to 32 preschool children with typical development, and 32 with specific language impairment receiving treatment at CADIT: the Children�s Center for Early Intervention and Development. The study�s main objective was to examine whether the language-impaired group�s cognitive profile could improve by applying learning potential methodology. Its second aim was to demonstrate the effectiveness of mediation in both groups. The results revealed significant differences between the two groups at pretest on most subscales. As for the second objective, we observed differences between pretest and posttest scores in both groups. In the second group, all differences were significant except in the case of classification and auditory memory, while in the first group, the differences between pretest and posttest scores were significant on all sub-scales but visual memory.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aranov Z. (1999). Validity and reliability of the ACFS Behavior Observation Rating Scale. (Unpublished master's thesis). Touro College, New York, NY.
  • Bensoussan Y. (2002). The effectiveness of mediation on three subtests of the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale, a dynamic assessment procedure for young children. (Unpublished master's thesis). Touro College, New York, NY.
  • Brooks N. D. (1997). An exploratory study into the cognitive modifiability of preschool children using dynamic assessment. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle, UK.
  • Calero M. D. (2004). Validez de la evaluación del potencial de aprendizaje [The validity of learning potential assessment]. Psicothema, 16, 217-221.
  • Calero M. D., Robles-Bello M. A., & García M. B. (2010). Habilidades cognitivas, conducta y potencial de aprendizaje en preescolares con síndrome de Down [Cognitive skills, behavior, and learning potential in preschool children with Down syndrome]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8, 87-110.
  • Calero M. D., Robles-Bello M. A., Márquez J., & de la Osa P. (2009). EHPAP: Evaluación de Habilidades y Potencial de Aprendizaje para Preescolares [EHPAP: Application of Cognitive Functions Scale]. Madrid, Spain: Editorial EOS.
  • Candel I. (2005). Elaboración de un programa de atención temprana [Creating an early treatment program]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 3, 151-192.
  • Contreras M. C., & Soriano M. (2007). La morfología flexiva en el trastorno específico del lenguaje y en la deprivación sociocultural [Inflectional morphology in specific language impairment and sociocultural deprivation]. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 27, 110-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0214-4603(07)70080-3.
  • Del Barrio V. (2009). Problemas específicos de la evaluación infantil [Specific problems in child assessment]. Clínica y Salud, 20, 225-236.
  • Elliott J. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educaitonal Review, 55, 15-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910303253.
  • Federación Estatal de Asociaciones de Profesionales de Atención Temprana (FEAPAT) (2008). Organización diagnóstica para la atención temprana, Manual de instrucciones [The diagnosis and early treatment organization. Instructions manual]. Madrid, Spain: Real Patronato sobre Discapacidad. Retrieved from http://www.vojta.es/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ODAT-Libro-2008.pdf.
  • Feuerstein R., Rand Y., & Hoffman M. B. (1979). Dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential, assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
  • Grupo Atención Temprana (2000). Libro blanco de la atención temprana [White paper on early treatment]. Madrid, Spain: Real Patronato de Prevención y de Atención a Personas con Minusvalía. Retrieved from https://www.fcsd.org/libro-blanco-de-la-atenci%C3%B3n-precoz-69992.pdf.
  • Gutiérrez-Clellen V. F., & Peña E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 212-224. http://lshss.asha.org/cgi/doi/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/019.
  • Hasson N., & Joffe V. (2007). The case for dynamic assessment in speech and language therapy. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23, 9-25. http://clt.sagepub.com/content/23/1/9.full.pdf+html.
  • Hasson N., & Botting N. (2010). Dynamic assessment of children with language impairments: A pilot study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26, 249-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265659009349982.
  • Hasson N., Dodd B., & Botting N. (2012). Dynamic Assessment of Sentence Structure (DASS): Design and evaluation of a novel procedure for the assessment of syntax in children with language impairments. International Journal of Language and communication disorder. 47, 285-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00108.x.
  • Haywood H. C., & Lidz C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Haywood H. C., & Tzuriel D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 40-63http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7702-5.
  • Haywood H. C., & Wingenfeld S. (1992a). The learning test concept: Origins, state of the art and trends. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive Assessment (pp. 64-93). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
  • Haywood H. C., & Wingenfeld S. (1992b). Interactive assessment as a research tool. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 235-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600303.
  • Jacobs E. L. (2001). The effects of adding dynamic assessment components to a computerized preschool language screening test. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22, 217-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/152574010102200407.
  • Jacobs E. L., & Coufal K. L. (2001). A computerized screening instrument of language learnability. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22, 67-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/152574010102200202.
  • Jiménez M. I. (2006). Adaptación al castellano de la Escala de Aplicación de Funciones Cognitivas (ACFS) [Spanish adaptation of the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale]. (Unpublished master's thesis). Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Granada, Spain.
  • Larsen J. A., & Nippold M. A. (2007). Morphological analysis in school-age children: Dynamic assessment of a word learning strategy. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 201-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/021.
  • Levy C. (1999). The discriminant validity of the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS): A performance comparison between typically developing and special needs preschool children. (Unpublished master's thesis). Touro College, New York, NY.
  • Lidz C. S. (1992). Extent of incorporation of dynamic assessment in cognitive assessment courses: A national survey of school psychology trainers. Journal of Special Education, 26, 325-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600307.
  • Lidz C. S. (2004). Assessment procedure with deaf students between the ages of four and eight years. Educational and Child Psychology, 21 59-73.
  • Lidz C. S., & Jepsen R. H. (2000). The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale, administration manual. New York, NY: Touro College, Graduate School of Education and Psychology.
  • Lidz C. M., & van der Aalsvoort G. M. (2005). Usefulness of the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale with young children from the Netherlands. Transylvanian Journal of Psychology, 6, 25-44.
  • Losardo A., & Notari-Syverson A. (2001). Alternative approaches to assessing young children. Baltimore, MD: Brooke Publishing.
  • Malowitsky M. (2001). Investigation of the effectiveness of the mediation portion of two subtests of the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale, a dynamic assessment procedure for young children. (Unpublished master's thesis). Touro College, New York, NY.
  • Peña E. (2001). Assessment of semantic knowledge: Use of feedback and clinical interviewing. Seminars in Speech and Language, 22, 51-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-13865.
  • Peña E., Bedore L., & Rappazzo C. (2003). Comparison of Spanish, English and bilingual children's performance across semantic types. Speech-Language-Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 5-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2003/001.
  • Peña E., Gillam R., Malek M., Ruiz-Felter R., Resendiz M., Fiestas C., & Sabel T. (2006). Dynamic assessment of children from culturally diverse backgrounds: Applications to narrative assessment. Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research, 49, 1037-1057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/074.
  • Peña E., Iglesias A., & Lidz C. S. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children's word learning ability. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 10, 138-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2001/014.
  • Peña E., & Quinn R. (2003). Developing effective collaborative teams in speech language pathology. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 24, 53-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15257401030240020201.
  • Pérez P., & Salmerón T. (2006). Desarrollo de la comunicación y del lenguaje: Indicadores de preocupación [Communication and language development: Signs of trouble]. Revista Pediatría de Atención Primaria, 8, 679-693.
  • Resing W. C. M. (2001). Beyond Binet: All testing should be dynamic testing. Issues in Education, 7, 225-236.
  • Restrepo H. A., Schwanenflugel P. J., Blake J., Neuharth- Pritchett S., Craner S. E., & Ruston H. P. (2006). Performance on the PPVT-III and the EVT: Applicability of the measures with African American and European American preschool children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 17-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/003.
  • Shamir A., & Lazerowitz T. (2007). Peer mediation intervention for scaffolding self-regulated learning among children with learning disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(3), 255-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250701430786.
  • Shurin R. (1999). Concurrent and discriminant validity of a dynamic assessment procedure with special needs and typical preschool children. (Unpublished master's thesis). Touro College, New York, NY.
  • Swanson H. L., & Howard C. B. (2005). Children with reading disabilities: Does dynamic assessment help in the classification? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 17-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4126971.
  • Takit T. (2000). A concurrent validity study between the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale and the Leiter-Revised International Performance Test. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Nl. ED445033; Clearinghouse Identifier TM031638).
  • Vygotsky L. S. (1978). El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores. [Development of higher psychological processes]. Barcelona, Spain: Grijalbo.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet