Dear Dr. Lidz,

I am sorry, I have no own research in which I had used the ACFS. Of course, I used as reference some of your works (the framework has been especially important to me), but I have not applied directly to the ACFS instrument, because the focus of our research was specifically the dynamic assessment of reading disabilities. I know the research team of Dr. M. Dolores Calero has used ACFS and has made a validation of the scale in Spanish. I suppose that you already know it, but in any case I send you one of the references that appear on the page Researchgate Dr. Calero.

Learning potential assessment and adaptation to the educational context: The usefulness of the acfs for assessing immigrant preschool children.

M. Dolores Calero · Sara Mata · Rosario Carles · Carmen Vives · Sonia López‐rubio · Antonio Fernández‐parra · Elena Navarro ·

Psychology in the Schools 08/2013; 50(7). DOI:10.1002/pits.21701

I am very grateful that you have contacted to me. I take this opportunity to share with you the news that I have recently awarded a research project FONDEF - CONICYT (Chile) entitled "Design and validation of an Adaptive Computerized Battery for the evaluation of reading and text comprehension processes".

Abstract

Problem. Reading assessment is framed within theoretical conceptualizations defined by a constructive or interactive nature assigned to the reading and comprehension processes (Hacker, Dunlosky & Graesser, 2009). School practices, however, are usually focused on the use of assessment procedures that are static, adopting standardized assessment models designed to assess the product of comprehension (Dörfler, Golke & Artelt, 2009). The latter is relevant for the evaluation of students with special educational needs (SEN). In these cases, standardized tests provides very limited information about students. The results focused on deficits of execution, which only serves to confirm their low performance, instead of shedding light on the specific difficulties that the student has while performing the activity, or identifying the optimum conditions for the process (Navarro & Mora, 2013). Solution. This project aims to develop and validate an adaptive/dynamic assessment device of reading processes with computerized support. This assessment device involves different levels of difficulty and mediation guidelines associated with each item on the test. The adaptive assessment is characterized by the progressive adaptation of the test contents to the level of competence shown by the individual through his or her execution of the presented tasks (Barrada, 2012). The system includes mediation and valuation of the evaluator, and allows one to record the sequence of actions performed and the execution times. Its implementation will allow for the gathering of additional information, beyond that of static assessments, about (a) the levels of difficulty demonstrated by the student as he/she solves different tasks, as well as (b) the type and degree of support that the student requires to successfully solve the tasks. In this way, the adaptive/dynamic device would facilitate the individualization of the assessment process, which would not impede the establishment of parameters that allow comparability between assessment results through the use of methods from the Item Response Theory (Embretson & Reise, 2000). The generated information could offer data on the assistance and patterns of mediation that have proved effective during the process, which would make it possible to infer patterns of successful interventions aimed at improvement (Grigorenko, 2009). Results. The Software that contains the adaptive/dynamic assessment device of reading processes EDPL-BAI (prototype); the Manual that includes the application’s tutorial; the Database of the results of the test’s administration, as well as obtain incremental validity indicators of the dynamic scores in relation to standard test scores. Recipients. Elementary school students, especially those who have SEN and reading difficulties. Users of the device would be the professionals who work with this population: psychologists, counselors, speech therapists, special education teachers, and general classroom teachers.

Greetings!

Thanks so much for your response. I do have a great deal of information re the Spanish version, and will give it considerable coverage in my article. Your research project sounds very interesting and exciting. I'm, of course, very pleased to see the curriculum focus. Please be sure to send me the references for the resulting research (and a copy of your articles, if possible. Best of luck and Happy New Year

Dear Dr. Lidz, I am glad you know about our research with the ACFS. Your idea about bringing together research on the ACFS sounds really interesting. Maybe you have our articles but anyway I am attaching them (only one is in Spanish). I would like very much know about that article.

Thank you very much for your interest and, personally, I am grateful about your work which allowed me develop my doctoral dissertation.

Merry Christmas!

Sara

Greetings!!

The research I've done with other tests that assess memory development, constructive praxis are:

Galindo G, Cortés JF, Salvador J: Diseño de un nuevo procedimiento para calificar la Figura Compleja de Rey: confiabilidad inter-evaluadores. Salud Mental*. 19(2):1-6, 1996.

Cortés Jf, Galindo G, Salvador J: La Figura Compleja de Rey: propiedades psicométricas. Salud Mental*, 19(3): 42-48, 1996.

Salvador J, Cortés Jf, Galindo G: Propiedades cualitativas en la ejecución de la Figura Compleja de Rey a lo largo del desarrollo en población abierta. Salud Mental*, 19(4):22-30, 1996.

Galindo G, Cortés Jf, Salvador J: Diseño de un nuevo procedimiento para calificar la Figura Compleja de Rey para niños: confiabilidad inter-evaluadores. Salud Mental*, 20(1): 22-26, 1997.

Cortés Jf, Galindo G, Salvador J: La Figura Compleja de Rey para niños: propiedades psicométricas. Salud Mental*, 20(2):17-20, 1997.

Salvador J, Cortés Jf, Galindo G: Propiedades cualitativas en la ejecución de la Figura Compleja de Rey para niños a lo largo del desarrollo en población abierta. Salud Mental*, 20(3): 9-14, 1997.

Galindo, G., Balderas, E., Salvador, J., Reyes, E. (2010) Estandarización de la Figura de Taylor en población mexicana. Salud Mental. 33(4). http://www.artemisaenlinea.org.mx/acervo/pdf/salud_mental/6Estandarizaciondela.pdf

Salvador, J., Salgado J. (2012) Memoria verbal en niños de 4 a 6 años de edad y su relación con el desarrollo de habilidades escolares. EduPsykhé Revista de Psicología y Educación, 11 (1) 3-19. ISSN1579-0207. URL: http://www.ucjc.edu/pdf/publicaciones/edupsikhe/vol-11/cap1%20vol11-1.pdf

I hope usefull references.

Merry Christmas

Attentamente

Neuropsychology Judith Salvador Cruz

Sara: Thanks so much. I believe I have these, but I appreciate having the whole set, and I can check mine against those that you forwarded. I very much appreciate the work of you and your colleagues on the procedure, and, needless to say, am delighted with the results!!

Judith: thank you for your response. However, my article is limited to a review of the ACFS.

Dear Carol,

I have nothing published, but in my practical work with internationally adopted children, ages 4 through 6, I use The Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS, Lidz/Jepsen, 2001) in a dynamic assessment format. Below is an extract from report related to use of ACFS. Not sure you will b pleased with this use of your instrument, but for the practical  purposes of remediation it serves me well.

"A similar pattern was observed during “dynamic assessment” using the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS) – an interactive procedure that follows a test-intervention-retest format, focusing on the cognitive processes and metacognitive characteristics of a child. Through an analysis of E.’s pre-test and post-test performance that followed test-embedded intervention, we can derive important information about his cognitive modifiability, his responsiveness to an adult's mediation, his amenability to instruction and guidance, and his ability to self-regulate learning activity. 

ACFS consists of activities that draw on basic cognitive processes and learning strategies associated with typical in-classroom performance. In this assessment two subtests, namely Classification and Sequential Pattern Completion, were utilized. Each subtest yields an indication of the degree of mastery of a task (reflecting the underlying cognitive skills) and E.’s responsiveness to intervention. A behavior rating scale – the same for both subtests – describes the qualitative aspects of E.’s interaction with the material and the examiner by reflecting such characteristics as self-regulation, persistence, frustration tolerance, motivation, flexibility, and responsiveness/interactivity.

 Classification: E. was asked to sort blocks into groups (based on color, shape, size or a combination of these characteristics). The intervention focused on identifying what it was about these blocks that served as a basis for grouping. Scoring includes the ability to respond to directions, the ability to make groups based on a distinctive feature, and evidence of flexible thinking in changing the categories for grouping.

Sequential Pattern Completion: E. was asked to complete a repetitive sequential pattern, started by the examiner, using tangrams. The intervention focused on helping him sense the rhythm of a pattern and learn to use the cues provided by the examiner to determine what comes next. Scoring includes an awareness of distinctive features of sequenced pattern pieces, detection of repetitive features (rhythm) of pattern, and comprehension of the concept of "sequencing."

During the intervention phase E. demonstrated understanding the principle of grouping and patterning: he nodded affirmatively and performed flawlessly during our shared/joint activity. He obviously understood the concept of grouping and patterning in all modalities presented (auditory, visual, and kinesthetic).  However, during a post-teaching phase, being asked to make groups based on more than one characteristic (e.g.: color and size simultaneously) he made an attempt to start grouping but was distracted and began to play with the blocks. When I reminded him about the assignment, he pretended not to hear me and continued with his agenda. I insisted, gently turning him towards the pile of the blocks. E. seemingly effortlessly made groups based on the explained criteria, but was unwilling to continue on his own with this assignment, preferring to build with the blocks. The same was observed during the sequential pattern assignment: during the post-test he correctly completed the first three sets of tangrams, but refused to give any verbal explanation of his choices. He completed the fourth set of tangrams, where the color and shape served the united determinant of patterning. However, being asked to continue on his own, he seemed to be confused and was not able to complete the remaining tangrams. This pattern was consistently observed during the “dynamic assessment” (as well as during standardized testing): as soon as E. was provided with a structure, clear guidance, and/or a model, he performed on a level at or above his age expectations. As soon as he was left on his own, he became dis-regulated and his performance regressed to a level below age expectations. His interactivity and receptivity with the examiner were not effective for learning: it was difficult for him to generalize skills learned during our shared/joint activity to independent activity.   

The “dynamic assessment” procedure confirmed that E. is cognitively a solidly average child, but is not easily modifiable. E. has a tendency to resist learning in a socially collaborative context because of his difficulties with intrinsic motivation, persistence, and self-regulation in mental activities. His responsiveness (ability to be socially engaged) is inconsistent, particularly in his interactions with an adult in a teaching role. E. has shown responsiveness to interventions but has tended to regress to his initial behaviors, having difficulty in generalizing (transferring) his new learning experience. Therefore his otherwise effective intellectual abilities are dependent on his non-cognitive characteristics: motivation, level of anxiety, and emotional stability. In particular this was evident in relation to his working memory, attention, and self-regulation of cognitive activities. E. would require more duration and intensity in a collaborative learning experience than is expected for his peers. The “dynamic assessment” showed that “role playing,” “modeling,” and “imitating” were neither objectively easy nor subjectively engaging for E.. Unfortunately, those are the major learning/teaching “mechanisms” for his age".

 Best regards, Boris Gindis

Thanks Boris. This is certainly of interest. I'll keep it in mind as a possibility for the article. Right now I'm focusing on the data, but my thinking is still in process (and possibly modifiable) Thanks again!