Dynamic AssessmentThe Spanish version of the application of cognitive functions scale

  1. Mata Sierra, Sara 1
  2. Calero García, María Dolores 1
  1. 1 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: 2014

Volumen: 17

Páginas: 1-9

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2014.98 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

For the last 30 years, the sphere of educational assessment has been giving consideration to methodology that would focus on the processes more than on the final results obtained. Dynamic Assessment has appeared within this context, making it possible to assess a child�s ability to improve on a certain task after receiving mediated training. One of the techniques developed to assess the learning potential of preschoolers is the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS: Lidz & Jepsen, 2003). The objective of this study was to verify the criterion validity of the Spanish version of the ACFS which was applied to 87 children in the second year of preschool, at which time a learning potential index was obtained for each child. Two years later, the children were reassessed with respect to intelligence, metacognition and scholastic aptitudes. Results showed that learning potential presented evidences of predictive validity regarding to the progression showed on the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test�s (K-BIT: Kaufman & Kauffman, 1994) matrices subtest (p = .04, ?2 = .04) and on the evaluation subtest of the metacognition questionnaire (p = .02, ?2 = .05). Results also showed significant differences between groups on the visual-perceptive aptitude subtest (p = .01) in favor of the children classified as learners.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Annervita T., & Vauras M. (2006). Developmental changes of metacognitive skill in elementary school children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 195-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200%2FJEXE.74.3.195-226
  • Budoff M. (1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An international approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 52-81). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Caffrey E., Fuchs D., & Fuchs L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 254-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022466907310366
  • Calero M. D., Parra A., López-Rubio S., Carles R., Mata S., Vives-Montero C., Márquez J. (2013). Variables involved in personal, social and school adjustment in a sample of preschool-aged children from different cultural backgrounds. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 133-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10212-012-0107-8
  • Calero M. D., Robles M. A., & García-Martín M. B. (2010). Cognitive skills, behavior and learning potential of preschool children with Down syndrome. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8, 87-110.
  • Calero M. D., Robles M. A., Márquez J., & De la Osa P. (2009). EHPAP: Evaluación de Habilidades y Potencial de Aprendizaje en Preescolares [Assessment of Skills and Learning Potential in Preschoolers]. Madrid, Spain: EOS.
  • Cordero A., & Calonge I. (2000). Adaptación española del K-BIT: Test Breve de Inteligencia de Kaufman [Spanish adaptation of the K-BIT: Kaufman's Brief Intelligence Test]. In A. Kaufman & N. Kaufman (Eds.), K-BIT: Test Breve de Inteligencia de Kaufman (pp. 51-60). Madrid, Spain: TEA.
  • De la Cruz V. (1982). Batería de Aptitudes para el Aprendizaje, BAPAE [Battery of Aptitudes for Learning]. Madrid, Spain: TEA.
  • Desoete A., Roeyers H., & Buysse A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem-solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 435-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F002221940103400505
  • Fernández-Ballesteros R., Juan-Espinosa M., Colom R., & Calero M. D. (1997). Contextual and personal sources of individual differences in intelligence: Empirical results. In J. S. Carlson, J. Kingma, & W. Tomic (Eds.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: Refections on the concepts of Intelligence (pp. 221-274). Greenwich, UK: JAI Press.
  • Feuerstein R., Feuerstein R. S., Falik L. H., & Rand Y. (2002) The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifability. Jerusalem, Israel: The Icelp Press.
  • Garrett A. J., Mazzocco M. M., & Baker L. (2006). Development of the metacognitive skills of prediction and evaluation in children with or without math disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 77-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1540-5826.2006.00208.x
  • Haywood H. C., & Lidz C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
  • Horn J. L., & Noll J. (1994). A system for understanding cognitive capabilities. In D. K. Determan (Ed.), Current topic in human intelligence (pp. 151-203). New Jersey, NJ: Ablex.
  • Howell S. C., & Kemp C. R. (2010). Assessing preschool number sense: Skills demonstrated by children prior to school entry. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 30, 411-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F01443411003695410
  • Kaufman A. S., & Kaufman A. L. (1994). KBIT: Test Breve de Inteligencia de Kaufman. Manual de interpretación. [KBIT: Kaufman's Brief Intelligence Test. Interpretation Manual]. Madrid, Spain: TEA.
  • Levy C. (1999). The discriminate 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. (2000). The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS): A curriculum based dynamic assessment for preschool children. In C. S. Lidz & J. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 120-145). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
  • 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. (2005). The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale: A dynamic assessment procedure for young children. In O. S. Tan & A. Seok-Hoon Seng (Eds.), Enhancing cognitive functions: Applications across contexts (pp. 77-101). Singapore, Republic of Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
  • Lidz C. S., & Gindis B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 99-116). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lidz C. S., & Jepsen R. H. (2003). Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS): Technical manual. Unpublished Manuscript. Touro College, New York, NY.
  • Manzo A. V., Manzo U. C., & McKenna M. C. (1995). Informal Reading-Thinking Inventory. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Co.
  • Meijer J., & Elshout J. (2001). The predictive and discriminant validity of the zone of proximal development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 93-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348%2F000709901158415
  • Murray E., & Harrison L. J. (2011). The infuence of being ready to learn on children's early school literacy and numeracy achievement. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 31, 529-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F01443410.2011.573771
  • Prior M., Bavin E., & Ong B. (2011). Predictors of school readiness in fve to six year-old children from an Australian longitudinal community sample. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 31, 3-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F01443410.2010.541048
  • Resing W. C. M. (1993). Measuring inductive reasoning skills: The construction of a learning potential test. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological, and practical issues (pp. 219-242). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
  • Sternberg R. J., & Grigorenko E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swanson H. L., & Lussier C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543071002321
  • Tzuriel D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1255-4-5
  • van der Aalsvoort G. M., & Lidz C. S. (2007). A cross-cultural validation study of the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 91-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300%2FJ370v24n01-05
  • Veenman M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters B. H. A., & Afferbach P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11409-006-6893-0
  • Waldorf M., Wiedl K. H., & Schöttke H. (2009). On the concordance of three reliable change indexes: An analysis applying the Dynamic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Journal of Cognitive education and Psychology, 8, 63-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891%2F1945-8959.8.1.63
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet