The Construct and Predictive Validity of a Dynamic Assessment of Young Children Learning to Read: Implications for RTI Frameworks

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment (DA) of decoding learning. Students (N = 318) were assessed in the fall of first grade on an array of instruments that were given in hopes of forecasting responsiveness to reading instruction. These instruments included DA as well as one-point-in-time (static) measures of early alphabetic knowledge, rapid automatized naming (RAN), phonemic awareness, oral vocabulary, listening comprehension, attentive behavior, and hyperactive or impulsive behavior. An IQ test was administered in spring of second grade. Measures of reading outcomes administered in spring of first grade were accuracy and fluency of word identification skills and reading comprehension. Factor analysis using principal axis factor extraction indicated that DA loaded on a first factor that also included language abilities and IQ, which the authors refer to as the “language, IQ, and DA” factor. It was relatively distinct from two additional factors: (a) “speeded alphabetic knowledge and RAN” and (b) “task-oriented behavior.” A three-level (children nested within classroom; classrooms nested within school) random intercept model with fixed effects predictors suggested that DA differed from word attack in predicting future reading skill and that DA was a significant predictor of responsiveness to instruction, contributing unique variance to end-of-first-grade word identification and reading comprehension beyond that explained by other well-established predictors of reading development.

Construct and incremental validity of dynamic assessment of decoding within and across domains

“…As a whole, the present review suggests that DA measures have incremental validity in explaining or predicting word reading and its growth (Bridges & Catts, 2011;Cho et al, in press;Fuchs et al, 2011;Spector, 1992;Swanson & Howard, 2005). Although the consistent findings across these studies are that DA was a significant predictor of word reading skills, the amount of variance uniquely explained by DA was small.…”

“…Despite some consistency in findings in the above two studies, another study by D. Fuchs et al (2011) produced somewhat different results. In this study, DA was developed for three decoding skills with graduated prompts embedded within each skill.…”

“…These studies used a stringent criterion for establishing the incremental validity of DA by comparing DA to a number of predictors that could potentially influence word reading outcome. Fuchs et al (2011) also investigated the predictive validity of DA of decoding for predicting future word reading. The authors found that decoding DA was a significant predictor of word reading, even when controlling for the static measures of decoding.…”

“…An extension study of Fuchs et al (2011) was conducted by Cho, Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Bouton (in press). The authors used the same DA as Fuchs et al to predict responsiveness to supplemental small group tutoring.…”

“…Comparing DA of similarities (i.e., verbal domain) and block design (i.e., nonverbal domain) tasks, the researchers found that responsiveness indices of the two tasks were not correlated. The second reason for hypothesizing domain-specificity of DA is that DA has shown differential patterns of predictive validity for explaining two different outcomes even within the same domain (e.g., Bridges & Catts, 2011;Fuchs et al, 2011;Seethaler et al, 2011).…”