Dynamic measurement: A theoretical–psychometric paradigm for modern educational psychology

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 88-105

  Dumas, Denis ^a   McNeish, Daniel ^b   Greene, Jeffrey A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85082972695     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1744150     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E., (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44 (3), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903029006
2. Aravena, S., Tijms, J., Snellings, P., & van der Molen, M. W., (2016). Predicting responsiveness to intervention in dyslexia using dynamic assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.024
3. Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25 (3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803
4. Baltes, P. B., & Kliegl, R., (1992). Further testing of limits of cognitive plasticity: Negative age differences in a mnemonic skill are robust. Developmental Psychology, 28 (1), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.121
5. Binet, A., (1975). Modern ideas about children. Suzanne Heisler. (Original work published 1909)
6. Binet, A., & Simon, T., (1948). The development of the Binet-Simon Scale, 1905–1908. In W., Dennis (Ed.), Readings in the history of psychology (pp. 412–424). Appleton-Century-Crofts. (Original work published 1908)
7. Blozis, S. A., & Harring, J. R., (2018). Fitting nonlinear mixed-effects models with alternative residual covariance structures. Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118789718
8. Bose, M., Kohli, N., Newell, K. W., & Christ, T. J., (2019). Response to intervention: Empirical demonstration of a dual-discrepancy population via random effects mixture models. Learning and Individual Differences, 71, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.03.004
9. Bracht, G. H., (1970). Experimental factors related to aptitude-treatment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 40 (5), 627–645. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543040005627
10. Briggs, D. C., & Weeks, J. P., (2009). The impact of vertical scaling decisions on growth interpretations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28 (4), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00158.x
11. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A., (2006). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M., Lerner (Ed.), The handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Wiley & Sons.
12. Brozek, J., (1972). To test or not to test: Trends in the Soviet views. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 8 (2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(197204)8:2<243::AID-JHBS2300080212>3.0.CO;2-3
13. Budoff, M., (1987a). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C. S., Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173–195). Guilford Press.
14. Budoff, M., (1987b). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C. S., Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 53–81). Guilford Press.
15. Budoff, M., & Friedman, M., (1964). “ Learning potential” as an assessment approach to the adolescent mentally retarded. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28 (5), 434–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040631
16. Budoff, M., & Pagell, W., (1968). Learning potential and rigidity in the adolescent mentally retarded. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73 (5), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026219
17. Calero, M. D., Belen, G.-M M., & Robles, M. A., (2011). Learning potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 21 (2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.025
18. Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H., (1978). Use of testing-the-limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82 (6), 559–564.
19. Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H., (1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven matrices. Intelligence, 3 (4), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(79)90002-3
20. Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H., (1992). Principles of dynamic assessment: The application of a specific model. Learning and Individual Differences, 4 (2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(92)90011-3
21. Castellano, K. E., & Ho, A. D., (2013). A practitioner’s guide to growth models. Council of Chief State School Officers.
22. Cattell, R. B., (1979). Are culture fair intelligence tests possible and necessary? Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12 (2), 3–13.
23. Chaffey, G. W., (2009). Gifted but underachieving: Australian indigenous children. In T., Balchin, B., Hymer, & D. J., Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 106–114). Routledge.
24. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J., (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002004
25. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A., Cho, E., & Crouch, R. C., (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448
26. Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L., (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74 (1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029382
27. Davidian, M., & Giltinan, D. M., (1995). Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data. CRC Press.
28. De Weerdt, E. H., (1927). A study of the improvability of fifth grade school children in certain mental functions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18 (8), 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073097
29. Dearborn, W. F., (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--XII. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12 (4), 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0065003
30. Deonovic, B., Yudelson, M., Bolsinova, M., Attali, M., & Maris, G., (2018). Learning meets assessment. Behaviormetrika, 45 (2), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0070-z
31. DuBois, W. E. B., (2013). W. E. B. DuBois on sociology and the Black community. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1920)
32. Dumas, D., & McNeish, D. M., (2017). Dynamic measurement modeling: Using nonlinear growth models to estimate student learning capacity. Educational Researcher, 46 (6), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17725747
33. Dumas, D., & McNeish, D. M., (2018). Increasing the consequential validity of reading assessment using dynamic measurement modeling. Educational Researcher, 47 (9), 612–614. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18797621
34. Dumas, D., McNeish, D., Sarama, J., & Clements, D., (2019). Pre-school mathematics intervention can significantly improve student learning trajectories through elementary school. AERA Open, 5 (4), 233285841987944. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2332858419879446
35. Dumas, D., McNeish, D., Schreiber-Gregory, D., Durning, S. J., & Torre, D. M., (2019). Dynamic measurement in health professions education: Rationale, application, and possibilities. Academic Medicine, 94 (9), 1323–1328. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002729
36. Elliott, J. G., Resing, W. C. M., & Beckmann, J. F., (2018). Dynamic assessment: A case of unfulfilled potential? Educational Review, 70 (1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1396806
37. Embretson, S. E., (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In C. S., Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 141–170). Guilford Press.
38. Embretson, S. E., (1991). A multidimensional latent trait model for measuring learning and change. Psychometrika, 56 (3), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294487
39. Feuerstein, R., Krasilowsky, D., & Rand, Y., (1974). Innovative educational strategies for the integration of high-risk adolescents in Israel. The Phi Delta Kappan, 55 (8), 556–558.
40. Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Hoffman, M. B., Rand, Y., Mintzker, Y., & Jensen, M. R., (1981). Cognitive modifiability in adolescence: Cognitive structure and the effects of intervention. The Journal of Special Education, 15 (2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698101500213
41. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M., (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. University Park Press.
42. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Jensen, M. R., Kaniel, S., & Tzuriel, D., (1987). Prerequisites for assessment of learning potential: The LPAD model. In Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 35–51). Guilford Press.
43. Frisby, C. L., & Braden, J. P., (1992). Feuerstein’s dynamic assessment approach: A semantic, logical, and empirical critique. The Journal of Special Education, 26 (3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600305
44. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S., (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
45. 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
46. Grigorenko, E. L., (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326207
47. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J., (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (1), 75–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.75
48. Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Estabrook, R., (2016). Growth modeling: Structural equation and multilevel modeling approaches. Guilford Publications.
49. Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Hamagami, F., (2011). Nonlinear growth curves in developmental research. Child Development, 82 (5), 1357–1371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01630.x
50. Guthke, J., (1992). Learning tests: The concept, main research findings, problems and trends. Learning and Individual Differences, 4 (2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(92)90010-C
51. Guthke, J., & Beckmann, J. F., (2000). Learning test concepts and dynamic assessment. In A., Kozulin & Y., Rand (Eds.), Experience of mediated learning: An impact of Feuerstein’s theory in education and psychology (pp. 175–190). Pergamon Press.
52. Guthke, J., & Stein, H., (1996). Are learning tests the better version of intelligence tests? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.12.1.1
53. Haertel, E. H., (2018). Tests, test scores, and constructs. Educational Psychologist, 53 (3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1476868
54. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O., (2013). Structural equation modeling: A second course (2 nd ed.). IAP.
55. Haney, M. R., & Evans, J. G., (1999). National survey of school psychologists regarding use of dynamic assessment and other nontraditional assessment techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 36 (4), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199907)36:4<295::AID-PITS3>3.0.CO;2-G
56. Haywood, H. C., (2008). Twenty years of IACEP, and a focus on dynamic assessment: Progress, problems, and prospects. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 7 (3), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1891/194589508787724042
57. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S., (2006). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
58. Hessels, M. G. P., & Hamers, J. H. M., (1993). The learning potential test for ethnic minorities. In J. H. M., Hamers, K., Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M., Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 285–311). Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
59. Humphrey, S. E., & LeBreton, J. M., (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000115-000
60. Jacqmin-Gadda, H., Sibillot, S., Proust, C., Molina, J. M., & Thiébaut, R. (2007). Robustness of the linear mixed model to misspecified error distribution. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51 (10), 5142–5154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.05.021
61. Kern, B., (1930). Wirkungsformen der Ubung [Effects in training]. Helios.
62. Kliegl, R., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B., (1989). Testing-the-limits and the study of adult age differences in cognitive plasticity of a mnemonic skill. Developmental Psychology, 25 (2), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.247
63. Kohli, N., Peralta, Y., & Bose, M., (2019). Piecewise random-effects modeling software programs. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26 (1), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1516507
64. Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H., (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics, 38 (4), 963–974.
65. Lederberg, A. R., & Spencer, P. E., (2009). Word-learning abilities in deaf and hard-of-hearing preschoolers: Effect of lexicon size and language modality. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14 (1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn021
66. Leroux, A. J., & Beretvas, S. N., (2018). Estimation of a latent variable regression growth curve model for individuals cross-classified by clusters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53 (2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1418654
67. Lidz, C. S., (1992). Dynamic assessment: Some thoughts on the model, the medium, and the message. Learning and Individual Differences, 4 (2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(92)90009-4
68. Lidz, C. S., & Peña, E. D., (2009). Response to intervention and dynamic assessment: Do we just appear to be speaking the same language? Seminars in Speech and Language, 30 (02), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1215719
69. McNeish, D., (2016). Estimation methods for mixed logistic models with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 790–804.
70. McNeish, D., (2017). Challenging conventional wisdom for multivariate statistical models with small samples. Review of Educational Research, 87 (6), 1117–1151.
71. McNeish, D., & Dumas, D., (2019). Scoring repeated standardized tests to estimate capacity, not just current ability. Policy Insights from the Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 19–24 https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219862578
72. McNeish, D., & Dumas, D., (2017). Nonlinear growth models as measurement models: A second-order growth curve model for measuring potential. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52 (1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1253451
73. McNeish, D., & Dumas, D., (2018). Calculating conditional reliability for dynamic measurement model capacity estimates. Journal of Educational Measurement, 55 (4), 614–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12195
74. McNeish, D., Dumas, D., & Grimm, K., (2020). Estimating new quantities from longitudinal test scores to improve forecasts of future performance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52, 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1691484
75. McNeish, D., & Hamaker, E. L., (2020). A primer on two-level dynamic structural equation modeling for intensive longitudinal data in Mplus. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000250.
76. Meredith, W., (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58 (4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
77. Moerbeek, M., & Safarkhani, M., (2018). The design of cluster randomized trials with random cross-classifications. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 43 (2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998617730303
78. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press.
79. National Research Council and National Academy of Education (NRC and NAE). (2010). Getting value out of value-added: Report of a workshop. Committee on value-added methodology for instructional improvement, program evaluation, and educational accountability, Henry Braun, Naomi Chudowsky, and Judith Koenig, (Eds.), Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press.
80. Navarro, E., & Calero, M. D., (2009). Estimation of cognitive plasticity in old adults using dynamic assessment techniques. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 8 (1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.8.1.38
81. NWEA. (2011). Technical manual: Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and Measures of Academic Progress for Primary Grades (MPG). NWEA.
82. Passig, D., Tzuriel, D., & Eshel-Kedmi, G., (2016). Improving children’s cognitive modifiability by dynamic assessment in 3D Immersive Virtual Reality environments. Computers & Education, 95, 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.009
83. Piaget, J., (1960). The psychology of intelligence. Littlefield, Adams.
84. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M., (1995). Approximations to the log-likelihood function in the nonlinear mixed-effects model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 4 (1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1390625
85. Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A., (2011). Frames of interaction in Dynamic Assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18 (2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.567116
86. Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X., (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32 (3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560390
87. Powell, M. J. D., (1977). Restart procedures for the conjugate gradient method. Mathematical Programming, 12, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593790
88. Pressley, M., & Roehrig, A., (2003). Educational psychology in the modern era: 1960 to present. In B., Zimmerman & D. H., Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 333–366). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
89. Raven, J. C., (1941). Standardization of progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19 (1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x
90. Resing, W. C. M., (2013). Dynamic testing and individualized instruction: Helpful in cognitive education? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12 (1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.1.81
91. Resing, W. C. M., de Jong, F. M., Bosma, T., & Tunteler, E., (2009). Learning during dynamic testing: Variability in strategy use by indigenous and ethnic minority children. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 8 (1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.8.1.22
92. Rey, A., (1934 /2012). A method for assessing educability: Some applications in psychopathology. Haywood, C. (Trans). Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11 (3), 274–300. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.11.3.274
93. Sijtsma, K., (1993). Psychometric issues in learning potential assessment. In J. H. M., Hamers, K., Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M., Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 175–193). Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
94. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L., (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge University Press.
95. 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
96. Stevenson, C. E., Hickendorff, M., Resing, W. C. M., Heiser, W. J., & de Boeck, P. A. L., (2013). Explanatory item response modeling of children’s change on a dynamic test of analogical reasoning. Intelligence, 41 (3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.01.003
97. Strauss, D., (1992). The many faces of logistic regression. The American Statistician, 46, 321–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/2685327
98. Stringer, P., (2018). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Is potential ever realised? Educational Review, 70 (1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1397900
99. Swanson, H. L., (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (2), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.306
100. Swanson, H. L., (1995a). Using the Cognitive Processing Test to assess ability: Development of a dynamic assessment measure. School Psychology Review, 24 (4), 672–693.
101. Swanson, H. L., (1995b). Effects of dynamic testing on the classification of learning disabilities: The predictive and discriminant validity of the Swanson-Cognitive Processing Test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13 (3), 204–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299501300301
102. Swanson, H. L., (2000). Swanson cognitive processing test: Review and applications. In C., Lidz & J. G., Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 71–107). Elsevier Science.
103. Swanson, H. L., & Howard, C. B., (2005). Children with reading disabilities: Does dynamic assessment help in the classification? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28 (1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126971
104. Thorndike, E. L., (1919). A standardized group examination of intelligence independent of language. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3 (1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070037
105. Thorndike, E. L., (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium-- I. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12 (3), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0064596
106. Thorndike, E. L., (1924). Measurement of intelligence. Psychological Review, 31 (3), 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073975
107. Thum, Y. M., & Hauser, C. H., (2015). NWEA 2015 MAP norms for student and school achievement status and growth. NWEA Research Report. NWEA.
108. Thurstone, L. L., (1926). The scoring of individual performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 17 (7), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075125
109. Timmons, A. C., & Preacher, K. J., (2015). The importance of temporal design: How do measurement intervals affect the accuracy and efficiency of parameter estimates in longitudinal research? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50 (1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.961056
110. Tzuriel, D., & Caspi, R., (2017). Intervention for peer mediation and mother-child interaction: The effects on children’s mediated learning strategies and cognitive modifiability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.03.005
111. Veerbeek, J., Vogelaar, B., Verhaegh, J., & Resing, W. C. M., (2019). Process assessment in dynamic testing using electronic tangibles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35 (1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/Jcal.12318, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12318
112. von Davier, A. A., Deonovic, B., Yudelson, M., Polyak, S. T., & Woo, A., (2019). Computational psychometrics approach to holistic learning and assessment systems. Frontiers in Education, 4, 69. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00069
113. Vygotsky, L. S., (1931 /1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. In R. W., Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L S Vygotsky (Vol 4). Plenum Press.
114. Vygotsky, L. S., (1935 /2011). The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development in relation to teaching and learning. Kozulin, A. (Trans.). Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10 (2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.10.2.198
115. Wolfinger, R. D., (1999, April). Fitting nonlinear mixed models with the new NLMIXED procedure. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference (SUGI 24) (pp. 278–284).
116. Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D., (2019). Promoting L2 English learners’ reading proficiency through computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1585882