Clinical Issues: Dynamic Assessment of Children From Culturally Diverse Backgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on Language Learning and EducationClinical Issues1 Jul 2004Clinical Issues: Dynamic Assessment of Children From Culturally Diverse Backgrounds Ronald B. Gillam and Elizabeth D. Penña Ronald B. Gillam University of Texas at Austin Google Scholar More articles by this author and Elizabeth D. Penña University of Texas at Austin Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/lle11.2.2 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments.Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 18(1), 1– 22. Google Scholar Gillam, R., & McFadden, T. U. (1994). Redefining assessment as a holistic discovery process.Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 16(1), 36–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Gillam, R. B., Peña, E. D., & Miller, L. (1999). Dynamic assessment of narrative and expository discourse.Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1), 33–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Pena, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial.Language, Speech & Hearing Services in the Schools, 32(4), 212–224. Google Scholar Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., Pena, E., & Quinn, R. (1995). Accommodating cultural differences in narrative style: A multicultural perspective.Topics in Language Disorders, 15(4), 54–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Quinn, R. (1993). Assessing narratives in diverse cultural/linguistic populations: Clinical implications.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24(1), 2–9. LinkGoogle Scholar Iglesias, A. (1985). Cultural conflict in the classroom: The communicatively different child.In D. N. Ripich & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 79–96). San Diego: College-Hill. Google Scholar Iglesias, A., & Gutierrez-Clellen, V. (1988). Thecultural linguistic minority student.In D. Yoder & R. Kent (Eds.), Decision making in speech-language pathology (pp. 119–120). Burlington, Canada: B. C. Decker. Google Scholar McCabe, A. (1997). Developmental and cross-cultural aspects of children’s narration. In P. Michael & G. W. Bamberg (Eds.), Narrative Development: Six approaches (pp. 137–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar Miller, L. (2000a). Birdandhis ring. Austin, TX: Neon Rose Productions. Google Scholar Miller, L. (2000b). Two friends. Austin, TX: Neon Rose Productions. Google Scholar Miller, L., Gillam, R., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment and intervention: Improving children’s narrative skills. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Google Scholar Peña, E. D., & Gillam, R. B. (2000). Dynamic assessment of children referred for speech and language evaluations.In C. Lidz & J. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (vol. 6, pp. 543–575). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar Peña, E., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children’s word learning ability.American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 10, 138–154. LinkGoogle Scholar Spinillo, A. G., & Pinto, G. (1994). Children’s narratives under different conditions: A comparative study.British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(2), 177–193. Google Scholar Ukrainetz, T. A., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kin-dergartners.Language, Speech & Hearing Services in the Schools, 31(2), 142–154. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByPerspectives on School-Based Issues11:3 (80-87)1 Oct 2010Dynamic Assessment: Whys and HowsLynette Austin Volume 11Issue 2July 2004Pages: 2-5 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Jul 1, 2004 Metrics Downloaded 40 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2004 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".