This article compares and contrasts the main features of dynamic testing and assessment (DT/A) and response to intervention (RTI). The comparison is carried out along the following lines: (a) historical and empirical roots of both concepts, (b) premises underlying DT/A and RTI, (c) terms used in these concepts, (d) use of these concepts, (e) evidence in support of DT/A and RTI, and (f) expectations associated with each of the concepts. The main outcome of this comparison is a conclusion that both approaches belong to one family of methodologies in psychology and education whose key feature is in blending assessment and intervention in one holistic activity. Because DT/A has been around much longer than RTI, it makes sense for the proponents of RTI to consider both the accomplishments and frustrations that have accumulated in the field of DT/A.
Abbott, S.P., Reed, E., Abbott, R.D., & Berninger, V.W. (1997). Year-long balanced reading/writing tutorial: A design experiment used for dynamic assessment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 249-263.
2.
Allal, L., & Ducrey, G.P. (2000). Assessment of-or in-the zone of proximal development . Learning and Instruction, 10, 137-152.
3.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council of Administrators of Special Education, Council for Exceptional Children, Council for Learning Disabilities, Division for Learning Disabilities, International Dyslexia Association, et al. (2006, November). New roles in Response to intervention: Creating success for schools and children. Available from http://www.interdys.org
4.
Anderson, R.T. (2001). Learning an invented inflectional morpheme in Spanish by children with typical language skills and with specific language impairment (SLI). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36, 1-19.
5.
Barrera, M. (2006). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English for special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 142-156.
6.
Barth, A., Stuebing, K.K., Anthony, J.L., Denton, C.A., Mathes, P.G., Fletcher, J.M., et al. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 296-307.
7.
Bateman, B. (1965). An educational view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders. In J.Hellmuth (Ed.), Learning disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 219-239). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.
8.
Beckmann, J.F. (2006). Superiority: Always and everywhere? On some misconceptions in the validation of dynamic testing. Educational and Child Psychology, 23, 35-49.
9.
Berninger, V.W., & Abbott, R.D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 163-183). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
10.
Birney, D., Jeltova, I., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2008). Making instruction and assessment responsive to diverse students' progress: Empirical investigation of Dynamic Assessment for groups. Unpublished manuscript.
11.
Bosma, T., & Resing, W.C.M. (2006). Dynamic assessment and a reversal task: A contribution to needs-based assessment. Educational and Child Psychology, 23, 81-98.
12.
Brown, J.R. (2001). Who rules in science? An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
Büchel, F.P. (2006). Analogical reasoning in students with moderate intellectual disability: Reasoning capacity limitations or memory overload ? Educational and Child Psychology, 23, 61-80.
14.
Büchel, F.P., Schlatter, C., & Scharnhorst, U. (1997). Training and assessment of analogical reasoning in students with severe learning difficulties. Educational and Child Psychology, 14, 109-120.
15.
Budoff, M. (1987a). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173-195). New York: Guilford.
16.
Budoff, M. (1987b). The validity of learning potential assessment . In C. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 53-81). New York: Guilford.
17.
Burns, M.K., Appleton, J.J., & Stehouwer, J.D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of Responsiveness-to-Intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.
18.
Camilleri, B. (2005). Dynamic assessment and intervention: Improving children's narrative abilities. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40, 240-242.
19.
Campione, J.C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 151-165.
20.
Campione, J.C., Brown, A., Ferrara, R.A., Jones, R.S., & Steinberg, E. (1985). Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer following equivalent learning performance. Intelligence, 9, 297-315.
21.
Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K.H. (1992). Principles of dynamic assessment: The application of a specific model. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 153-166.
22.
Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K.H. (2000). The validity of dynamic assessment. In C. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 681-712). New York: Elsevier.
23.
Cartiella, C. (2006). A parent's guide to response-to-intervention. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from http://www.LD.org
24.
Center for Promoting Research to Practice. (n.d.).Project MP3: What is RTI? Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University. Available from http://www.lehigh.edu/collegeofeducation/mp3/rti/rti.htm
25.
Chak, A. (2001). Adult sensitivity to children's learning in the zone of proximal development. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 31, 383-395.
Cioffi, G., & Carney, J.J. (1997). Dynamic assessment of composing abilities in children with learning disabilities. Educational Assessment, 4, 175-202.
28.
Compton, D.L. (2006). How should "unresponsiveness" to secondary intervention be operationalized? It is all about the nudge. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 170-173.
29.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bryant, J.D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.
30.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Elleman, A.M., & Gilbert, J.K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329-337.
31.
Crosby, F.J., Clayton, S., Downing, R., & Iyer, A. (2004). Values and science. American Psychologist , 59, 125-126.
32.
Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. (2005). Past accomplishments and future challenges. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 137-139.
33.
de Leeuw, L. (1983). Teaching problem solving: An ATI study of the effects of teaching algorithmic and heuristic solution methods. Instructional Science, 12, 1-48.
34.
de Leeuw, L., van Daalen, H., & Beishuizen, J.J. (1987). Problem solving and individual differences: Adaptation to and assessment of student characteristics by computer based instruction. In E. D. Corte, H. Lodewijks, & R. Parmentier (Eds.), Learning & instruction: European research in an international context (Vol. 1, pp. 99-110). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
35.
Dean, V.J., Burns, M.K., Grialou, T., & Varro, P.J. (2006). Comparison of ecological validity of learning disabilities diagnostic models. Psychology in the Schools , 43, 157-168.
36.
Deno, S.L. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
37.
Deutsch, R., & Reynolds, Y. (2000). The use of dynamic assessment by educational psychologists in the UK. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16, 311-331.
38.
Ehren, B.J., & Nelson, N.W. (2005). The responsiveness to intervention approach and language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 120-131.
39.
Elliott, J.G. (2000). Dynamic assessment in educational contexts: Purpose and promise. In C. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 713-740). New York: Elsevier.
Elliott, J.G., & Lauchlan, F. (1997). Assessing potential-The search for the philosopher's stone? Educational and Child Psychology, 14, 6-16.
42.
Elliott, J.G., Lidz, C., & Shaughnessy, M.F. (2004). An interview with Joe Elliott and Carol Lidz. North American Journal of Psychology , 6, 349-360.
43.
Embretson, S.E. (2000). Multidimensional measurement from dynamic tests: Abstract reasoning under stress. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 35, 505-542.
44.
Embretson, S.E., & Prenovost, L.K. (2000). Dynamic cognitive testing: What kind of information is gained by measuring response time and modifiability ? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 837-863.
45.
Fabio, R.A. (2005). Dynamic assessment of intelligence is a better reply to adaptive behavior and cognitive plasticity. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 41-64.
46.
Fernández-Ballesteros, R., Zamarrón, M.D., & Tàrraga, L. (2005). Learning potential: A new method for assessing cognitive impairment. International Psychogeriatrics, 17, 119-128.
47.
Fernandez, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001-2002). Re-conceptualizing "scaffolding" and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36-37, 40-54.
48.
Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R.S., Falik, L.H., & Rand, Y. (2002). The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability: The Learning Propensity Assessment Device: Theory, instruments and techniques. Revised and expanded edition of The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers . Jerusalem, Israel: ICELP Press .
49.
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Fuchs, L.S., & Barnes, M.A. (2007). Learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.
50.
Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6-23.
Fortun, M., & Bernstein, H.J. (1998). Muddling through: Pursuing science and truths in the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.
53.
Freeman, L., & Miller, A. (2001). Norm-references, criterion-referenced, and dynamic assessment: What exactly is the point? Educational Psychology in Practice, 17, 3-16.
54.
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D.D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129-136.
55.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
56.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2006). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly , 27, 216-227.
57.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Bouton, B., Caffrey, E., & Hill, L. (2007). Thinking outside the box about RTI: A role for dynamic assessment? Unpublished manuscript.
58.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
59.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.
60.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Identifying learning disabilities with RTI. Perspectives, 32, 39-43.
61.
Gerber, M.M. (2000). Dynamic assessment for students with learning disabilities: Lessons in theory and design. In C. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 263-292). New York: Elsevier.
62.
Gerber, M.M. (2001). All teachers are dynamic tests. Issues in Education, 7, 193-200.
63.
Gerber, M.M. (2002). All teachers are dynamic tests: Issues in education . Contributions From Educational Psychology, 7, 193-200.
64.
Gerber, M.M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 516-524.
65.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J.A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 99-108.
66.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, H., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London : Sage.
67.
Gillam, R.B., Peña, E.D., & Miller, L. (1999). Dynamic assessment of narrative and expository discourse. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 33-47.
68.
Glaspey, A.M., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2005). Dynamic assessment of narrative and expository discourse. Topics in Language Disorders , 25, 220-230.
69.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Kameenui, E.J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
70.
Gravois, T.A., & Rosenfield, S. (2002). A multi-dimensional framework for evaluation of instructional consultation teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 5-29.
71.
Greenwood, D.J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
Gresham, F.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson , & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grigorenko, E.L., Sternberg, R.J., Jukes, M., Alcock, K., Lambo, J., Ngorosho, D., et al. (2006). Effects of antiparasitic treatment on dynamically and statically tested cognitive skills over time. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 499-526.
75.
Guterman, E. (2002). Toward dynamic assessment of reading: Applying metacognitive awareness guidance to reading assessment tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 283-298.
76.
Guthke, J. (1982). The learning test concept-An alternative to the traditional static intelligence test. German Journal of Psychology , 6, 306-324.
77.
Guthke, J. (1992). Learning tests: The concept, main research findings, problems and trends. Learning and Individual Differences, 137-151.
78.
Guthke, J., & Beckmann, J.F. (2000). The learning test concept and its application in practice. In C. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 17-69). New York: Elsevier.
79.
Guthke, J., & Beckmann, J.F. (2003). Dynamic assessment with diagnostic problems. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. I. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International perspectives (pp. 227-242). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
80.
Guthke, J., Beckmann, J.F., & Dobat, H. (1997). Dynamic testing- Problems, uses, trends and evidence of validity. Educational and Child Psychology, 14, 17-32.
81.
Hale, J.B., Naglieri, J.A., Kaufman, A.S., & Kavale, K.A. (2004). Specific learning disability classification in the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The danger of good ideas . School Psychologist, 58, 6-13.
82.
Hamers, J.H.M., Pennings, A., & Guthke, J. (1994). Training-based assessment of school achievement . Learning and Instruction, 4, 347-360.
83.
Hamers, J.H.M., & Resing, W.C.M. (1993). Learning potential assessment: Introduction. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 23-41). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
84.
Haney, M.R., & Evans, J.G. (1999). National survey of school psychologists regarding use of dynamic assessment and other nontraditional assessment techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 295-304.
85.
Haring, N., & Bateman, B. (1977). Teaching the learning disabled child. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
86.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race & disability in schools. New York : Teachers College Press.
87.
Haywood, H.C., & Lidz, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
88.
Haywood, H.C., & Miller, M.B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of adults with traumatic brain injuries. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 3, 137-163.
89.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
90.
Hessels, M.G.P. (1996). Ethnic differences in learning potential test scores: Research into item and test bias in the Learning Potential Test for Ethnic Minorities. Journal of Cognitive Education, 5, 133-153.
91.
Hessels, M.G.P. (1997). Low IQ but high learning potential: Why Zeyneb and Moussa do not belong in special education. Educational and Child Psychology, 14, 121-136.
92.
Hessels, M.G.P. (2000). The Learning Potential Test for Ethnic Minorities (LEM): A tool for standardized assessment of children in kindergarten and the first years of primary school. In C. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 109-131). New York: Elsevier.
93.
Hessels-Schlatter, C. (2002). A dynamic test to assess learning capacity in people with severe impairments. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 5, 340-351.
94.
Hollenbeck, A.F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 137-146.
95.
Humphries, T., Krogh, K., & McKay, R. (2001). Theoretical and practical considerations in the psychological and educational assessment of the student with intractable epilepsy: Dynamic assessment as an adjunct to static assessment. Seizure , 10, 173-180.
96.
Hwa-Froelich, D.A., & Matsuo, H. (2005). Vietnamese children and language-based processing tasks. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 230-243.
97.
Ikeda, M.J., & Gustafson, J.K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11's problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education (No. 2002-01) . Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Educational Agency 11.
98.
Ikeda, M.J., Tilly, W.D.I., Stumme, J., Volmer, L., & Allison, R. (1996). Agency-wide implementation of problem solving consultation: Foundations, current implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 228-243.
99.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
100.
Jacobs, E.L. (2001). The effects of adding dynamic assessment components to a computerized preschool language screening test. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22, 217-226.
101.
Jacobs, E.L., & Coufal, K.L. (2001). A computerized screening instrument of language learnability. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22, 67-75.
102.
Jeltova, I., Birney, D., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2007). Dynamic assessment as a process-oriented assessment in educational settings. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9, 1-13.
103.
Jitendra, A.K., & Kameenui, E.J. (1993). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment approach: A description and analysis. Remedial & Special Education, 14, 6-18.
104.
Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 83-93.
Kamps, D.M., Wills, H.P., Greenwood, C.R., Thorne, S., Lazo, J.F., Crockett, J.L., et al. (2003). Curriculum influences on growth in early reading fluency for students with academic and behavioral risks: A descriptive study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 211-224.
107.
Kanevsky, L. (1995). Learning potentials of gifted students. Roeper Review, 17, 157-163.
108.
Kanevsky, L., & Geake, J. (2004). Inside the zone of proximal development: Validating a multifactor model of learning potential with gifted students and their peers . Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 182-217.
109.
Kavale, K.A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities , 38, 553-562.
110.
Kendler, H.H. (2004). Politics and science: A combustible mixture. American Psychologist, 59, 122-123.
111.
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language education. Applied Linguistics, 23, 240-261.
112.
Kirkwood, M.W., Weiler, M.D., Holms Bernstein, J., Forbes, P.W., & Waber, D.P. (2001). Sources of poor performance on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test among children with learning difficulties: A dynamic assessment approach. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 15, 345-356.
113.
Koomen, H.M.Y., Verschueren, K., & Thijs, J. (2006). Assessing aspects of the teacher-child relationship: A critical ingredient of a practice-oriented psycho-diagnostic approach. Educational and Child Psychology, 23, 50-60.
114.
Kovaleski, J.F.S., & Glew, M.C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16-25.
115.
Kozulin, A. (2005). Learning potential assessment: Where is the paradigm shift? In D. B. Pillemer & S. H. White (Eds.), Developmental psychology and social change: Research, history and policy (pp. 352-367). New York: Cambridge University Press.
116.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of literacy: English as a third language. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 65-77.
117.
Lauchlan, F., & Elliott, J.G. (2001). The psychological assessment of learning potential . British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 647-665.
118.
Lens, W. (1987). Theoretical research should be useful and used . International Journal of Psychology, 22, 453-461.
119.
Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock .
120.
Lidz, C. (1997). Dynamic assessment: Restructuring the role of school psychologists. NASP Communiqué, 25, 22-24.
121.
Lidz, C., & Elliott, J. (Eds.). (2000). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier.
122.
Lidz, C., & Elliott, J. (2006). Use of dynamic assessment with gifted students . Gifted Education International, 21, 151-161.
123.
Machek, G.R., & Nelson, J.M. (2007). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of practicing school psychologists. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 147-157.
124.
Marsh, H.W. (1994). Sport motivation orientations: Beware of jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 365-380.
125.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford .
126.
Marston, D.B. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 539-544.
127.
Marston, D.B., Muyskens, P., Lau, M.Y.-Y., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 187-200.
128.
Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525-531.
129.
Meijer, J., & Elshout, J.J. (2001). The predictive and discriminant validity of the zone of proximal development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 93-113.
130.
Meijer, J., & Riemersma, F. (2002). Teaching and testing mathematical problem solving by offering optional assistance. Instructional Science, 30, 187-220.
Moore-Brown, B.J., Montgomery, J.K., Bielinski, J., & Shubin, J. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Teaching before testing helps avoid labeling. Topics in Language Disorders , 25, 148-167.
133.
Morris, R.D., Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., Shankweiler, D.P., et al. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology , 90, 347-373.
134.
Ncld. (2006). IDEA parent guide . Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.LD.org
135.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
136.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
137.
O'Connor, R.E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K.R., & Bell, K.M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440-455.
138.
O'Connor, R.E., Harty, K.R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532-538.
139.
Osep. (2001). Specific learning disabilities: Building consensus for identification and classification. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://www.nrcld.org/resources/ldsummit/index.shtml
140.
Peña, E.D. (2000). Measurement of modifiability in children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 87-97.
141.
Peña, E.D., 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.
142.
Peña, E.D., & Quinn, R. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and AfricanAmerican children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 323-332.
143.
Resing, W.C.M. (1997). Learning potential assessment: The alternative for measuring intelligence? Educational and Child Psychology , 14, 68-82.
144.
Rey, A. (1934). A method for assessing educability. Archives de Psychologie, 53, 297-337.
145.
Roseberry, C.A., & Connell, P.J. (1991). The use of an invented language rule in the differentiation of normal and language-impaired Spanish-speaking children. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 34, 596-603.
146.
Ryba, K. (1998). Dynamic assessment and programme planning for students with intellectual disabilities. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 27, 3-10.
147.
Ryba, K., & Brown, M. (1994). The teacher as researcher: Studying approaches to teaching and learning with information technology. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 6, 3-5.
148.
Sarason, S.B. (1978). The nature of problem solving in social action . American Psychologist, 33, 370-380.
149.
Scanlon, D.M., Gelzheiser, L.M., Vellutino, F.R., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J.M. (2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 346-359.
150.
Schlatter, C., & Büchel, F.P. (2000). Detecting reasoning abilities of persons with moderate mental retardation: The Analogical Reasoning Learning Test (ARLT) . In C. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 155-186). New York: Elsevier.
151.
Schulte, A.C. (2004). Has dynamic testing lived up to its potential? A review of Sternberg and Grigorenko's Dynamic Testing. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 88-92.
152.
Shapiro, E.S., Solari, E., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Use of a measure of reading comprehension to enhance prediction on the state high stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 316-328.
153.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J.M. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74, 71-84.
154.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
155.
Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53.
156.
Staskowski, M., & Rivera, E.A. (2005). Speech-language pathologists' involvement in responsiveness to intervention activities: A complement to curriculum-relevant practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 132-147.
157.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2001). All testing is dynamic testing. Issues in Education, 7, 137-170.
158.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2002). Dynamic testing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
159.
Sternberg, R.J., Grigorenko, E.L., Ngorosho, D., Tantufuye, E., Mbise, A., Nokes, C., et al. (2002). Assessing intellectual potential in rural Tanzanian school children. Intelligence, 30, 141-162.
160.
Stone, C.A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 31, 344-364.
161.
Swanson, H.L., & Howard, C.B. (2005). Children with reading disabilities: Does dynamic assessment help in the classification? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 17-34.
162.
Swanson, H.L., & Lussier, C.M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321-363.
163.
Telzrow, C.F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C.L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443-461.
164.
Thorndike, E.L. (1924). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurement. New York: John Wiley .
165.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
166.
Torgesen, J.K., Morgan, S.T., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364-370.
167.
Tymms, P., & Elliott, J. (2006). Difficulties and dilemmas in the assessment of special educational needs. Educational and Child Psychology , 23, 25-34.
168.
Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 18, 21-32.
169.
Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2007). The effects of peer mediation with young children (PMYC) on children's cognitive modifiability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 143-165.
170.
Ukrainetz, T.A., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 142-154.
171.
van der Aalsvoort, G.M., & Harinck, F.J.H. (2001). Scaffolding: Classroom teaching behavior for use with young students with learning disabilities. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36, 29-39.
172.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Barnett, D.W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339-361.
173.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology , 45, 225-256.
174.
Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Denton, C.A., Wanzek, J., Cirino, P.T., et al. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences , 18, 338-345.
175.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.
176.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children , 69, 391-409.
177.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
178.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
179.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Tanzman, M.S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of School Psychology , 36, 367-397.
180.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
181.
Wallace, T., Espin, C.A., McMaster, K., Deno, S.L., & Foegen, A. (2007). CBM progress monitoring within a standards-based system. Journal of Special Education, 41, 66-67.
182.
Wennergren, A.-C., & Ronnerman, K. (2006). The relation between tools used in action research and the zone of proximal development. Educational Action Research , 14, 547-568.
183.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines , 17, 89-100.
184.
Zaaiman, H., van der Flier, H., & Thijs, G.D. (2001). Dynamic testing in selection for an educational programme: Assessing South African performance on the Raven Progressive Matrices . International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 258-269.
