Evaluating the Benefit of Dynamic Testing of Arithmetic Skills for Writing Individualized Education Plans
Abstract
Dynamic testing (DT) is an approach that allows tailoring instructions to students’ needs. However, previous research on DT is mostly limited to its predictive validity in general domains. This study aims to provide insights into the benefits of DT for planning individualized educational support. Therefore, we developed a dynamic test of arithmetic skills for third graders with low math achievement. Math teachers were assigned to three experimental conditions in which they administered DT, a standard test of arithmetic skills, or no test and were asked to write individualized education plans (IEPs) for their students afterwards. N = 99 plans were analyzed to discern patterns and variations across the conditions. The results did only show a limited benefit of DT.
References
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Developmental Dynamics of Math Performance From Preschool to Grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.699
Barow, T., & Östlund, D. (2020). Stuck in failure: Comparing special education needs assessment policies and practices in Sweden and Germany. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729521
Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Mathematics Growth in Early Elementary School: The Roles of Beginning Knowledge, Student Engagement, and Instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/525550
Bosma, T., Hessels, M. G. P., & Resing, W. C. M. (2012). Teachers’ preferences for educational planning: Dynamic testing, teaching’ experience and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.007
Bosma, T., & Resing, W. C. M. (2008). Bridging the Gap Between Diagnostic Assessment and Classroom Practice. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 7(2), 174–198. https://doi.org/10.1891/194589508787381854
Bosma, T., & Resing, W. C. M. (2012). Need for instruction: Dynamic testing in special education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613599
Bosma, T., Stevenson, C. E., & Resing, W. C. M. (2017). Differences in Need for Instruction: Dynamic Testing in Children with Arithmetic Difficulties. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(6), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i6.2326
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The Predictive Validity of Dynamic Assessment: A Review. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907310366
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1978). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded children. Intelligence, 2(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(78)90020-X
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking Dynamic Assessment with School Achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential (pp. 82–109). The Guilford Press.
Cho, E., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bouton, B. (2014). Examining the Predictive Validity of a Dynamic Assessment of Decoding to Forecast Response to Tier 2 Intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412466703
Deutsch, R., & Reynolds, Y. (2000). The Use of Dynamic Assessment by Educational Psychologists in the UK. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16(3), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666083
Dixon, C., Oxley, E., Nash, H., & Gellert, A. S. (2023). Does Dynamic Assessment Offer An Alternative Approach to Identifying Reading Disorder? A Systematic Review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(6), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221117510
Dörfler, T., Golke, S., & Artelt, C. (2009). Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2–3), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.005
Dowker, A. (2008). Individual differences in numerical abilities in preschoolers. Developmental Science, 11(5), 650–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00713.x
Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., & Looi, C. Y. (2016). Mathematics Anxiety: What Have We Learned in 60 Years? Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508
Freeman, L., & Miller, A. (2001). Norm-referenced, Criterion-referenced, and Dynamic Assessment: What exactly is the point? Educational Psychology in Practice, 17(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667360120039942
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., & Caffrey, E. (2011). The Construct and Predictive Validity of a Dynamic Assessment of Young Children Learning to Read: Implications for RTI Frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407864
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K. N., Craddock, C. F., & Hamlett, C. L. (2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders’ development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 829–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012657
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K. N., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2011). Two-stage screening for math problem-solving difficulty using dynamic assessment of algebraic learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 372–380. MEDLINE. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407867
Haberstroh, S., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2022). The Cognitive Profile of Math Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis Based on Clinical Criteria. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 842391. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.842391
Haffner, J., Baro, K., Parzer, P., & Resch, F. (2005). HRT 1-4—Heidelberger Rechentest. Hogrefe.
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
Herppich, S., Praetorius, A.-K., Förster, N., Glogger-Frey, I., Karst, K., Leutner, D., Behrmann, L., Böhmer, M., Ufer, S., Klug, J., Hetmanek, A., Ohle, A., Böhmer, I., Karing, C., Kaiser, J., & Südkamp, A. (2018). Teachers’ assessment competence: Integrating knowledge-, process-, and product-oriented approaches into a competence-oriented conceptual model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.001
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(4), 121–136.
Kaniel, S. (2010). Domain Specific vs Domain General: Implications for Dynamic Assessment. Gifted Education International, 26(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600112
Kaskens, J., Goei, S. L., Van Luit, J. E. H., Verhoeven, L., & Segers, E. (2021). Dynamic maths interviews to identify educational needs of students showing low math achievement. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(3), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1889848
Kaskens, J., Segers, E., Goei, S. L., Van Luit, J. E. H., & Verhoeven, L. (2023). Dynamic Mathematics Interviews in Primary Education: The Relationship Between Teacher Professional Development and Mathematics Teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 25(1), 61–80.
Kaufmann, L., Mazzocco, M. M., Dowker, A., Von Aster, M., Göbel, S. M., Grabner, R. H., Henik, A., Jordan, N. C., Karmiloff-Smith, A. D., Kucian, K., Rubinsten, O., Szucs, D., Shalev, R., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2013). Dyscalculia from a developmental and differential perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00516
Krajewski, K., Dix, S., & Schneider, W. (2020). DEMAT 2+ Deutscher Mathematiktest für zweite Klassen. Hogrefe.
Lindner, K.-T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86
Maehler, C., & Schuchardt, K. (2011). Working Memory in Children with Learning Disabilities: Rethinking the criterion of discrepancy. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.547335
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 365–380). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13
Moineddin, R., Matheson, F. I., & Glazier, R. H. (2007). A simulation study of sample size for multilevel logistic regression models. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-34
Moll, K., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Bruder, J., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Specific Learning Disorder: Prevalence and Gender Differences. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e103537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103537
Morsanyi, K., Van Bers, B. M. C. W., McCormack, T., & McGourty, J. (2018). The prevalence of specific learning disorder in mathematics and comorbidity with other developmental disorders in primary school‐age children. British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 917–940. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12322
Navarro, J. I., Aguilar, M., Marchena, E., Ruiz, G., Menacho, I., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2012). Longitudinal study of low and high achievers in early mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02043.x
Paccagnella, O. (2011). Sample Size and Accuracy of Estimates in Multilevel Models: New Simulation Results. Methodology, 7(3), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000029
Pameijer, N. (2006). Towards needs-based assessment: Bridging the gap between assessment and practice. Educational and Child Psychology, 23(3), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2006.23.3.12
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Computer software]. https://www.R-project.org
Resing, W. C. M., Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Dynamic Testing and Assessment. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1055–1058). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6
Resing, W. C. M., Stevenson, C. E., & Bosma, T. (2012). Dynamic Testing: Measuring Inductive Reasoning in Children With Developmental Disabilities and Mild Cognitive Impairments. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.11.2.159
Resing, W. C. M., Tunteler, E., de Jong, F. M., & Bosma, T. (2009). Dynamic testing in indigenous and ethnic minority children. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 445–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.006
Scherer, P., Beswick, K., DeBlois, L., Healy, L., & Moser Opitz, E. (2017). Assistance of Students with Mathematical Learning Difficulties—How Can Research Support Practice?—A Summary. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education: ICME-13 (pp. 249–259). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62597-3
Schukajlow, S., Rakoczy, K., & Pekrun, R. (2023). Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: Where we are today and where we need to go. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 55(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01463-2
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., Ngorosho, D., Tantufuye, E., Mbise, A., Nokes, C., Jukes, M., & Bundy, D. A. (2002). Assessing intellectual potential in rural Tanzanian school children. Intelligence, 30(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00091-5
Tiekstra, M., Hessels, M. G. P., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2009). Learning capacity in adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. Psychological Reports, 105(3), 804–814. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.3.804-814
Tiekstra, M., Minnaert, A., & Hessels, M. G. P. (2016). A review scrutinising the consequential validity of dynamic assessment. Educational Psychology, 36(1), 112–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.915930
Tzuriel, D. (2000a). Dynamic Assessment of Young Children: Educational and Intervention Perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385–435. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009032414088
Tzuriel, D. (2000b). The Seria-Think Instrument: Development of a Dynamic Test for Young Children. School Psychology International, 21(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300212005
Tzuriel, D., & Universin, B. I. (2001). Dynamic Assessment is not Dynamic Testing. Issues in Education, 7(2), 237–249.
Veerbeek, J., Hessels, M. G. P., Vogelaar, S., & Resing, W. C. M. (2017). Pretest Versus No Pretest: An Investigation Into the Problem-Solving Processes in a Dynamic Testing Context. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 16(3), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.16.3.260
VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA - Software für qualitative Datenanalyse (Version 2022) [Computer software]. maxqda.com
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Taina Gabriel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.