Search

Background: Dynamic testing has been proposed as a testing approach that is less disadvantageous for children who may be potentially subject to bias when undertaking conventional assessments. For example, those who encounter high levels of test anxiety, or who are unfamiliar with standardized test procedures, may fail to demonstrate their true potential or capabilities. While dynamic testing has proven particularly useful for special groups of children, it has rarely been used with gifted children., Aim: We investigated whether it would be useful to conduct a dynamic test to measure the cognitive abilities of intellectually gifted children. We also investigated whether test anxiety scores would be related to a progression in the children's test scores after dynamic training., Sample: Participants were 113 children aged between 7 and 8 years from several schools in the western part of the Netherlands. The children were categorized as either gifted or average-ability and split into an unguided practice or a dynamic testing condition., Methods: The study employed a pre-test-training-post-test design. Using linear mixed modelling analysis with a multilevel approach, we inspected the growth trajectories of children in the various conditions and examined the impact of ability and test anxiety on progression and training benefits., Results and Conclusions: Dynamic testing proved to be successful in improving the scores of the children, although no differences in training benefits were found between gifted and average-ability children. Test anxiety was shown to influence the children's rate of change across all test sessions and their improvement in performance accuracy after dynamic training., (© 2016 The British Psychological Society.)

Background: Previous studies have suggested that when reading texts, lower achievers are more sensitive than their stronger counterparts to surface-level cues, such as graphic illustrations, and that even when uninformative, such concrete supplements tend to raise the text's subjective comprehensibility., Aims: We examined how being led astray by uninformative concrete supplements in expository texts affects achievement. We focused on the mediating role of metacognitive processes by partialling out the role of cognitive ability, as indicated by SAT scores, in accounting for the found differences between higher and lower achievers., Sample and Method: Undergraduate students studied expository texts in their base versions or in concrete versions, including uninformative supplements, in a within-participant design. The procedure had three phases: Studying, open-book test taking, and reanswering questions of one's choice., Results: Overall, judgements of comprehension (JCOMPs) were higher after participants studied the concrete than the base versions, and the participants benefited from the open-book test and the reanswering opportunity. An in-depth examination of time investment, JCOMP, confidence in test answers, choice of questions to reanswer, and test scores indicated that those whose metacognitive processes were more effective and goal driven achieved higher scores., Conclusions: The effectiveness of metacognitive processes during learning and test taking constitutes an important factor differentiating between higher and lower achievers when studying texts that include potentially misleading cues., (© 2013 The British Psychological Society.)