Evaluating Preschool Programs: The Role of Dynamic Assessment

  • Marilyn T. Samuels
  • Steve M. Killip
  • Heather MacKenzie
  • Joel Fagan
Part of the Disorders of Human Learning, Behavior, and Communication book series (HUMAN LEARNING)


Over the past few years, dynamic assessment approaches have been used with increasing frequency to assess children and adults experiencing learning difficulties. Research on dynamic assessment has focused primarily on their use with particular groups: children with learning disabilities (Samuels, Tzuriel, & Malloy-Miller, 1989), with cultural deprivation (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979) and hearing impairment (Keane, 1987). Dynamic assessment has also been used to evaluate the outcome of intervention programs, such as Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller’s (1980) Instrumental Enrichment, for teaching thinking to adolescents (Arbitman-Smith, Haywood, & Bransford, 1984; Narrol, Silverman, & Waksman, 1982; Samuels, Roadhouse, Conte, & Zirk, 1984). However, little research has examined the use of dynamic assessment for evaluating the outcome of preschool intervention programs. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the use of dynamic assessment for evaluating the effectiveness of preschool programs for children with learning difficulties. A project evaluating two approaches to programming for preschool children with special needs will be described to illustrate the use of dynamic assessment.


Preschool Child Dynamic Assessment Preschool Program Peabody Picture Vocabulary Special Education Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arbitman-Smith, R., & Haywood, H. C. (1980). Cognitive education for learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbitman-Smith, R., Haywood, H. C., & Bransford, J. D. (1984). Assessing cognitive change. In M. McCauley, R. Sperber, & P. Brooks (Eds.), Learning and cognition in the mentally retarded. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, C. (1947). A point scale of performance tests. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  4. Badian, N. A., & Serwer, B. L. (1975). The identification of high-risk children: A retrospective look at selection criteria. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(5), 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagnato, S. J. & Neisworth, J. T. (1981). Linking developmental assessment and curricula: Prescriptions for early intervention. Rockville, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
  6. Baumeister, A. A. (1984). Some methodological and conceptual issues in the study of cognitive processes with retarded people. In P. H. Brooks, R. Sperber, & C. McCauley (Eds.), Learning and cognition in the mentally retarded. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bradley, T. (1983). Remediation of cognitive deficits: A critical appraisal of the Feuerstein model. Journal of Mental Deficiency, 27, 79–92.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J. Wersch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eryant, N. R., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1983, April). Preschool children’s learning and transfer of matrices problems: Potential for improvement. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Meeting, Detroit.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, M. S. (1983). Comparison of graduated prompt and mediational dynamic assessment and static assessment with young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Google Scholar
  11. Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., & Bryant, N. R. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Implications for individual differences and learning. In B. Rogoff & J. Wertsch (Eds.), New directions for child development: Children’s learning in the “zone of proximal development” (Vol. 23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the classroom: A survey of programs. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Delclos, V. R., Burns, S., & Kulewicz, S. J. (1985). Effects of dynamic assessment on teacher’s expectations of handicapped children (Technical Report No. 3). Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Google Scholar
  14. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  15. Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Rand, Y., & Jensen, M. R. (1981). Can evolving techniques better measure cognitive change? The Journal of Special Education, 15(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device; theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  17. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  18. Funk, S. G., Sturnen, R. A., & Green, J. A. (1986). Preschool prediction of early school performance: Relationship of McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities prior to school entry to achievement in kindergarten, first and second grades. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodman, J. F., & Cameron, J. (1978). The meaning of IQ constancy in young retarded children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 132, 109–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haywood, H. C. (1987). A mediational teaching style. The Thinking Teacher, 4, 1–6.Google Scholar
  21. Haywood, H. C., Brooks, P., & Burns, S. (1986). Stimulating cognitive development at developmental level: A tested, non-remedial preschool curriculum for preschoolers and older retarded children. Special Services in the Schools, 2(3), 127–147.Google Scholar
  22. Jensen, M. R., & Feuerstein, R. (1987). The Learning Potential Assessment Device: From philosophy to practice. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment. 379–402, New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  23. Keane, K. J. (1987). Assessing deaf children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment. 360–376, New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Keogh, B. K., & Becker, L. D. (1973). Early detection of learning problems: Questions, cautions and guidelines. Exceptional Children, 40, 5–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Klein, P., & Feuerstein, R. (1985). Environmental variables and cognitive development. In S. Harel & N. Anastastow (Eds.) The at risk infant: Psychosocial-medical aspects. 369–377. Baltimore, MD: Brooks.Google Scholar
  26. Lerner, J., Mardell-Czudnowski, C., & Goldenberg, D. (1981). Special education for the early childhood years. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Lidz, C. S. (1983). Issues in assessing preschool children. In K. D. Paget & B. A. Bracken (Eds.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  28. Lidz, C. S. (in press) Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  29. Lidz, C. S., & Thomas, C. (1987). The preschool learning assessment device: Extension of a static approach. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment. 288–326, New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Marshman, M. E. (1986). Parental perception of generalization in preschool children with special needs. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
  31. Mearig, J. S. (1987). Assessing the learning potential of kindergarten and primary-age children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment. 237–267, New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  32. Mercer, J. R. (1973). Labelling the mentally retarded. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Missiuna, C. (1986). Dynamic assessment of preschool children with special needs: Comparison of mediation and in struction. Unpublished masters thesis, Calgary: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  34. Missiuna, C., & Samuels, M. (1989). Dynamic assessment of preschool children with special needs: Comparison of mediation and instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Missiuna, C., & Samuels, M. (1988). Dynamic assessment: Review and critique. Special Services in the Schools, 5(1 & 2), 1–22.Google Scholar
  36. Narrol, H., Silverman, H., & Waksman, M. (1982). Developing cognitive potential in vocational high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 76(2), 107–112.Google Scholar
  37. Paget, K. D., & Nagle, R. J. (1986). A conceptual model of preschool assessment. School Psychology Review, 15(2), 154–165.Google Scholar
  38. Reynolds, C. R., & Clark, J. H. (1983). Assessment of cognitive abilities. In K. D. Paget & B. A. Bracken (Eds.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  39. Samuels, M., & Conte, R. (1987). Instrumental enrichment with learning disabled adolescents: Is it effective? Journal of Practical Approaches to Developmental Handicap, 11(2), 4–6.Google Scholar
  40. Samuels, M., Fagan, J., MacKenzie, H., & Killip, S. M. (1988). Cognitive education for preschool children with severe learning difficulties. Final report. The Learning Centre, 3930 20th St. S.W., Calgary, Alta, T2T 4Z9.Google Scholar
  41. Samuels, M., Roadhouse, A., Conte, R., & Zirk, H. (1984). Instrumental enrichment with low-achieving adolescents. Edmonton: Alberta Education Technical Report.Google Scholar
  42. Samuels, M., Tzuriel, D., & Malloy-Miller, T. (1989). Dynamic assessment of children with learning difficulties. In R. Brown and M. Chazan (Eds.), Learning difficulties and emotional problems, 145–165, Calgary: Detselig.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidt, S., & Perino, J. (1985). Kindergarten screening results as predictors of academic achievement, potential and placement in second grade. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sigel, I., & Brodzinsky, D. M. (1977). Individual differences: A perspective for understanding intellectual development. In H. L. Horn Jr., & P. A. Robinson (Eds.), Psychological processes in early education, 295–329, New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  45. Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. S. (1985). The assessment of analogical thinking modifiability among regular, special education, disadvantaged and mentally retarded children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13(4), 539–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). A comprehensive approach to assessing intellectually handicapped children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment. 327–359, New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  47. Weatherford, D. L., & Goodroe, P. (1987). Manual on parent participation in the cognitive education of their young children. In H. C. Haywood, P. Brooks, & S. Burns (Eds.), Cognitive curriculum for young children. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  48. Wechsler, D. (1967). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marilyn T. Samuels
  • Steve M. Killip
  • Heather MacKenzie
  • Joel Fagan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations