Dynamic assessment as a predictor of reading development: a systematic review

Abstract

Assessments of reading and reading-related skills which measure acquired knowledge may pose problems for the prediction of future reading performance. Such static measures often result in floor effects in the early stages of reading instruction, and may be particularly inaccurate predictors for children from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds. Dynamic assessment (DA), in contrast, focuses on learning potential by measuring response to teaching, and may therefore be a less biased form of assessment. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the ability of dynamic measures of reading and related skills to predict variance in the growth of children’s reading skills over time. Seventeen peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, representing 18 studies published between 1992 and 2020. After static predictors were accounted for, dynamic measures of phonological awareness and decoding explained a significant amount of variance in the growth of word reading accuracy (1–21%) and word reading fluency (typically 1–9%), while variance in reading comprehension outcomes was accounted for by dynamic measures of morphological awareness (4–33.4%) and one dynamic decoding assessment (1%). Finally, a single paired-associate nonword learning task predicted 6% unique variance in future nonword reading accuracy and fluency. Results support the ability of DA to tap into variance unexplained by traditional static measures, though no studies explicitly examined the validity of DA for children from CLD backgrounds. We call for future studies of DA of reading to adopt longer developmental windows and assess proximal as well as distal reading outcome measures.

Concurrent and predictive validity of dynamic assessments of word reading in young children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…In terms of DA-SSK, only one study was included and could therefore not be compared in subgroup analysis. These findings, which provide suggestive evidence for the validity of DAs of PA and decoding in predicting later word reading outcomes are in line with outcomes of Dixon et al's systematic review which found that both DAs of PA and decoding accounted for significant unique variance in later word reading ability (between 1-33% across included studies; Dixon et al, 2022a).…”

“…Although Hunt et al (2022) findings support DA as a reliable measure for identifying DLD, the small number of studies and sample sizes reveal an area of research that requires attention and the need for more focus on multilingual populations. Dixon et al (2022a;2022b) published two papers exploring whether DAs can uniquely predict variance in the growth of a child's reading development beyond SAs, and whether DAs can act as a viable alternative to diagnosing reading disorders in children. In the first study (2022a) the researchers identified 17 studies that used DA to measure reading skills between at least two timepoints.…”

“…Evaluating a tool's concurrent agreement with gold standard measures is a key component of establishing its criterion related validity and determining whether it can serve as a legitimate alternative to established assessments. Furthermore, while the Caffrey et al, (2008) and Dixon et al, (2022aDixon et al, ( , 2022b studies considered predictive validity of DAs, neither conducted quantitative analyses which systematically examined (i) the predictive validity of distinct types of word reading word reading DAs or (ii) the validity of word reading DAs for use with populations based on their language (monolingual vs. bilingual) and reading status (at-risk vs. typically developing). All of which are important for understanding the validity of DAs across various populations and contexts.…”

“…Dixon et al (2022a; 2022b) published two papers exploring whether DAs can uniquely predict variance in the growth of a child’s reading development beyond SAs, and whether DAs can act as a viable alternative to diagnosing reading disorders in children. In the first study (2022a) the researchers identified 17 studies that used DA to measure reading skills between at least two timepoints.…”

“…Because of the heterogeneity in the predictor and outcomes variables used in the regression analyses in review 1, and the variability in the diagnostic measures and definitions of reading disorder used in study 2, authors were not able to conduct anything syntheses of their findings and instead provided a narrative review only. Finally, much like Orellana et al (2019), in both instances Dixon et al (2022a; 2022b) only included peer-reviewed English journal articles.…”