Longitudinal Predictive Validity of a Learning Potential Test

Beer, Marie De

doi:10.1080/14330237.2010.10820370

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only recently, Teo and Roodenburg (2013) demonstrated the additive effects of including self-regulation strategies during an assessment procedure. Moreover, in some dynamic tests general feedback is given (de Beer, 2010a;Gillam et al, 2011;Gummersall & Strong, 1999;Hamers et al, 1996;Jeltova et al, 2011;Sternberg et al, 2002;Tzuriel, 2000), but the kind and type of feedback is not adequately mentioned or registered. The extent to which examinees benefit from feedback is an important factor in dynamic assessment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review scrutinising the consequential validity of dynamic assessment

Tiekstra

Minnaert

Hessels

2014

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This literature review explored whether dynamic assessment procedures in psycho-educational practice might bridge the well-known gap between diagnosis and intervention. Due to a learning phase included in the testing procedure, qualitative information about the child's learning needs can be revealed by means of dynamic assessment. The question is, however, what the consequential validity, i.e. the extent to which assessment influences instructional and learning processes, of dynamic assessment procedures really is. The review of 31 articles that met the inclusion criteria showed that proximal consequential validity of dynamic assessment is warranted, but distal consequential validity is warranted to a lesser extent (e.g. some guidelines for practice). Furthermore, it can be noticed that motivational aspects never played an explicit role during learning phases. In order to design student-tailored interventions following dynamic assessment, there is a need for more explicitness of learning phases and types of feedback in the development of these instruments

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review scrutinising the consequential validity of dynamic assessment

Tiekstra

Minnaert

Hessels

2014

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Leaning Toward a Consensus About Dynamic Assessment: Can We? Do We Want To?

Lidz

2014

J Cogn Educ Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a response to two questions: Can we reach a consensus in the domain of dynamic assessment? and Do we want to? The brief response to these questions is first: Yes, it may be possible to reach a sufficient degree of consensus that we can offer some guidelines as to what is and what is not “dynamic” about assessment. The response to the latter question of whether we want to or not is a more qualified, “Well sort of, and to some extent, but with a great deal of latitude, flexibility, and room for diversity.” The article goes on to discuss the core concepts of dynamic assessment, what a general consensus might look like (also known as generic model), and, finally, some reference to the exciting developments that have emerged which make me advocate for diversity and flexibility in our model-building.

show abstract

The role of the Learning Potential Computerised Adaptive Test (LPCAT) in the vocational guidance assessment of adolescents

Beer¹

2011

bpsecp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, the role of learning potential assessment as part of cognitive assessment for vocational guidance was investigated for a population (N=262) of junior secondary students. Mean scores, distribution of scores, inter-correlation of scores and predictive validity were evaluated. The mean learning potential scores indicated a level of general reasoning and learning potential higher than the academic level of the students at the time of assessment and the distribution of the scores indicated tertiary level potential for some learners. Statistically significant correlations were found between the LPCAT learning potential scores and three sub-tests of the Differential Aptitude Test (Form R) (DAT-R) namely Verbal Reasoning, Comparison and Spatial Perception. Furthermore, all cognitive scores showed statistically significant correlations with the aggregate end-of-year academic performance in English, Life Orientation and Mathematics. Based on the results of this study, verbal reasoning is a better predictor of aggregate academic performance than learning potential based on non-verbal figural reasoning. A total of 35.3 per cent of the variance in academic performance was predicted by combining learning potential and aptitude scores. The unique explanation of variance in academic performance by means of the LPCAT post-test results alone was 12.9 per cent, while for Verbal Reasoning aptitude alone it was 29.2 per cent.

show abstract

Longitudinal Predictive Validity of a Learning Potential Test

Abstract: Keywords: dynamic assessment (DA); longitudinal predictive validity; item response theory (IRT); computerised adaptive testing (CAT); Learning Potential Computerised Adaptive Test (LPCAT)The measurement of learning potential has received considerable attention over the years

Cited by 3 publications

References 18 publications

A review scrutinising the consequential validity of dynamic assessment

A review scrutinising the consequential validity of dynamic assessment

Leaning Toward a Consensus About Dynamic Assessment: Can We? Do We Want To?

The role of the Learning Potential Computerised Adaptive Test (LPCAT) in the vocational guidance assessment of adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About