Rachael GreenEducational Psychologist - Head Ways PsychologyDECP Conference – Thursday 7th January 2016

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

DynamicAssessment –

how do weknow we aredoing it well?

The Problem…..

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• What is common to all approaches isa desire to offer an alternative to IQtests + some form of intervention orteaching within the assessmentprocess.

• What differs is the degree to whichthe examiner is aiming to “modify”cognitive functions and the focus onqualitative or quantitative ways ofdescribing change.

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

DA

Curriculumbased DA

Semi-structuredDA

‘Mixed formats’

Dynamic Assessment

Clinical DA

Structural DA

Dynamic Testing

Learning Potential testing

Functional DA

Research DA

Differentformats of DA

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Europe (Russia)• Guthke –

LearningPotential/Dynamic testing

(Vygotsky)

Israel• Feuerstein

Dynamicassessment

(Piaget/ Rey)

USA• Haywood / Lidz –

Interactiveassessment

• Tzuriel

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Which type of DA is used the most inthe UK?

Literature research of UK EP journals: EPIP, ECP, BJEP.

28 journal articles since 1985 on different approaches

Screened for country of origin, methodology, type of DA,DA tests referred to

13 produced by UK based practitioners/researchers

9 = DA, 2 = DT, 2 = didn’t specify

9 = descriptive/ opinion pieces, 2 = surveys, 1= quasi-experimental study

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• 119 practitioners(Deutsch & Reynolds,2000)

• 11% of 142 EPs usingDA (Farrell & Woods,2006)

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

…but how do weensure quality inour practice?

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

CBT…………..DA?

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Roth and Pilling – CBT Competency Map2007

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• Based on the premisethat group opinion ismore valid and reliablethan individual opinion.

• A ‘multi-staged’ surveyused to gain consensusof opinion from a panelof experts on an issuewhere consensuspreviously did not exist.

(Keeney et al. 2011)

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Defining‘expertise’

• Authorspublished in UKEP journals.

• Written aboutTzuriel or LPAD

Number of‘experts’

• More than 5• 16 names• 10 approached• 7 initially agreed

Finding the‘experts’

• 4 in the UK• 2 in the USA• 1 in Israel

Defining‘consensus’

• 75% or morerating ‘essential’or ‘totallyessential’

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• Additional ‘experts’ for Rounds 2and 3.

• ‘Practitioner’ Panel of EPs.• Recruited on EPNET.• 18 initially recruited.

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• 5 replies received.• 4 text excepts identified.• Content analysis using ‘Deductive content analysis’(Elo & Kyngas).• Used a web based tool – ‘Dedoose’ (www.dedoose.com)to assist with data coding.

• Lead to the generation of 123 competencystatements, which were converted into aquestionnaire for Rounds 2 and 3.

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

4 Sections:• Section 1 – Qualifications and Training• Section 2 – Knowledge

• Knowledge of Psychological theories• Knowledge of Assessment practice

• Section 3 – Skills• General Assessment Skills• Skills in Mediation

• Section 4 – Personal Qualities• Intrapersonal Qualities• Interpersonal Qualities

• (Section 5 – ‘New Competencies’ added after Round 2)

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• 20 responses received• Analysed using measures of central tendency• Mode ratings at 1+2 or 4+5

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• 17 responses received• Analysed using measures of central tendency• Mode ratings at 1+2 or 4+5

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Competency Total

No. competencies generated in Round1

123

No. competencies added in Round 2 15

Competencies for which there wasconsensus that they were essential forDA

112

(23 specific to DA practice)(63 not specific)(26 no consensus)

Competencies for which there wasconsensus that they were not essentialfor DA

0

Competencies for which there was notoverall consensus as to whether theywere essential or not

26

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Aspect of training Result of rating

Minimum Assessor Qualificationsneeded

No consensusTrend towards graduate level ofqualifications

Minimum number of days trainingneeded

No consensusResponses varied from 1 to more than10.

Minimum number of supervisedassessments

No consensusResponses varied from 1 to 10

Minimum no. of hours of supervisedDA practice

10-50 hours

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Competencies Specific to DApractice - Knowledge1. Mediated Learning Experience Theory (Feuerstein)

2. Structural Cognitive Modifiability Theory (Feuerstein)

3. Cognitive Map and Task Analysis (Feuerstein)

4. Tripartite Relationship – Task/learner/mediator (Feuerstein)

5. Work of Carol Lidz

6. Work of David Tzuriel

7. Different formats of DA

8. Dynamic Testing approaches

9. A range of DA tests

10. The psychometric properties of some tests

11. Cognitive processes required to complete DA tasks

12. How to judge the validity of different DA tests

13. When it is appropriate to use DA

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

Competencies Specific to DApractice - Skills1. Select DA tasks relevant to assessment questions

2 & 3. Adjust the task to learner needs to promote success/Adjust the assessor input to enhance learner performance.

4. Identify when to remove ‘knowledge’ barriers through pre-teaching rules/skills/ knowledge.

5. Identify mediation needed to improve cognitive functioning

6. Ensure graduated amount of mediation is used.

7. Mediate a systematic approach to tasks

8. Provide ‘cognitive bridges’ to allow student to move from‘perceptual’ to ‘conceptual’ understanding.

9. Profile learner modifiability

10. Analyse the type, stage and level of intensity of mediationused and compare across assessment tasks.

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

35

20

8

5

37

29 28

31

16

28

49

33

1

6

27

22

1

6 6

13 3

0 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Expert Proficient Competent Beginner

Fre

qu

en

cyo

fra

tin

gsin

cate

gory

Participant Group

Frequency of ratings on items for which there was nooverall consensus

Totally essential

Essential

Neither

Inessential

Totally Inessential

None

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• Generated a list of competency statements that can bedeveloped into a competency framework.

• Level of expertise and type of DA practiced influenced ratings(analysed using Dreyfus (2004) ‘5 Stage Model of Adult SkillAcquisition’)

• Need to establish ERG to further develop competency list andagree training and ongoing practice development standards.

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• If you are interested in participating in further work to developthis research into a competency framework or just have aninterest in developing DA practice amongst EPs, please get intouch:

Dr Rachael Green

Email: rachael@head-ways.co.uk

Phone: 07867 548115

Website: www.head-ways.co.uk ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• Clayton, M.J. (1997) Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion forcritical decision making in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4),373-386.

• Dedoose Version 4.5, web application for managing, analyzing, andpresenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2013). LosAngeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC(www.dedoose.com).

• Dreyfus, S.E. (2004) The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24 (3) 177-181.

• Elo, S. & Kyngas, H. (2007) The qualitative content analysis process,Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107-115.

• Farrell, P., Woods, K., Lewis, S., Rooney, S., Squires, G. & O’Connor, M.(2006) A review of the functions and Contribution of EducationalPsychologists in England and Wales in light of “Every Child Matters:Change for Children” London: DFES publications.

• Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R.S., Falik, L.H., Rand, Y. (2002) The DynamicAssessment of Cognitive Modifiability: The Learning PropensityAssessment Device, theory, instruments and techniques. Jerusalem:ICELP Press.

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk

• Guthke, J. & Beckmann, J.F. (2000) The Learning Test Concept and itsapplications to practice. In Lidz, C.S. & Elliott, J. (Eds) (2000) DynamicAssessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. Bingley: EmeraldGroup Publishing Ltd.

• Keeney, S., Hasson, F., McKenna, H. (2011) The Delphi Technique inNursing and Health Research. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

• Lidz, C.S. (1991) Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment. NewYork: The Guildford Press.

• Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi Method. Techniquesand applications, 53.

• Roth, A.D. & Pilling, S. (2008) Using and evidence-basedmethodology to identify competencies required to deliver effectiveCognitive Behavioural Therapy for depression and anxiety disorders.Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36, 129-147.

• Tzuriel, D. (2001) Dynamic Assessment of Young Children. New York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers

ww

w.h

ead

-way

s.co

.uk