在國小資優學生的鑑定歷程中，標準化智力測驗是最常被運用以評估學習能力的工具。然而，原住民學生卻常基於文化殊異或家庭文化刺激不足的因素，在傳統標準化智力測驗中表現低於潛能的水準，因此少有原住民學生通過鑑定進入一般智能優異班級。
在本研究中，研究者首先透過泛泰雅族（泰雅族、太魯閣族與賽德克族）圖騰的運用，編製「電腦化問題解決能力測驗」，以了解泛泰雅族學生在該測驗中表現達到資優鑑定標準的人數比率。 其次，研究者編製「電腦化動態評量漸進提示系統」運用漸進提示模式（graduated prompting assessment, GPA）與精緻化回饋漸進提示模式（elaboration feedback graduated prompting assessment, E-GPA ）兩種不同介入深度的動態評量，期望了解何種動態評量方式有利於評估學童的潛能發展空間、及近遷移（電腦化問題解決能力測驗前、後測進步量）與遠遷移（TONI-3前、後測進步量）之成效。
本研究之研究設計採「不等組前—後測實驗設計」，以就讀國小六年級之95名泛泰雅族學生為研究受試，分成四組進行實驗：（1）實驗組1：接受一次GPA動態評量介入處理，並檢測其近遷移與遠遷移；（2）實驗組2：接受GPA與E-GPA兩次動態評量介入處理，並檢測其近遷移與遠遷移；（3）控制組1：未接受動態評量介入；（4）控制組2：未接受動態評量介入，但接受近遷移及遠遷移檢測。
本研究工具為：自編「電腦化問題解決能力測驗」、「電腦化動態評量漸進提示系統」及「TONI-3」。施測所得之資料以t檢定及F檢定進行統計考驗。研究之主要發現如下：
一、自編之電腦化問題解決能力測驗含二個因素，共計28題。在信度、效度檢測方面，均得到不錯的結果。
二、以317名泛泰雅族國小六年級學生為電腦化問題解決能力測驗的常模樣本，得到平均數為9.21，標準差為4.64，有4.42％的學生可達到資優鑑定標準。
三、實驗組1與控制組1、2三組受試在一次GPA動態評量介入後，未發現有近遷移與遠遷移之現象。
四、實驗組2在GPA與E-GPA兩次動態評量中介教學後，發現有近遷移及遠遷移之現象。此外，在E-GPA中介時，提示量使用較GPA中介教學時明顯減少。
五、由實驗組2的受試中可發現：低能力層次學生進步量最大。
六、運用電腦化動態評量的介入可發掘具資優潛能的社經文化殊異資優生，但須考量中介的時間、學生的動機、提供學生說明解題策略的機會及設計減少分心的環境。

Standardized intelligence test has been used to assess learning potential of elementary school students in the process of gifted identification. But aboriginal students may not be recognized as gifted and talented in traditional intelligence tests because of their low socioeconomic status and cultural diversity, with the result that only a few students passed gifted identification test and entered the gifted program.
The focus of this paper was on the implementation of “Computerized Problem Solving Ability Test” and dynamic assessments for Pan-Atayal indigenous students to investigate the effects of the near versus far transfers and to discover the most effective intervention strategies for students’ potential development. There were two steps. Firstly, some Pan-Atayal totem, including Atayal, Truku, and Sediq totems were chosen to construct the “Computerized Problem Solving Ability Test” in order to discover the proportion of the Pan-Atayal students meet criteria for gifted identification. Secondly, when the “Computerized Graduated Prompting Assessment System” was designed using two types of dynamic assessments (DA), graduated prompting assessment (GPA) and elaboration feedback graduated prompting assessment (E-GPA) embedding different intervention strategies, the research questions which type of dynamic assessments could help to reveal students’ learning potential and the effect on near transfer (the scores of pre-test and post-test of Computerized Problem Solving Ability Test) and far transfer (the scores of pre-test and post-test of Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Third Edition, TONI-3) were examined.
An unequivalent pretest-posttest design was employed to examine the effects of the dynamic assessment procedures. Subjects of this study involved ninety-five 6th graders of Pan-Atayal aboriginal children in Taiwan. They were divided into four groups: (a) experimental group I (n=31): accepted the once-only intervention of GPA and were examined for the effects on both near and far transfers, (b) experimental group II(n=9): accepted the interventions of both GPA and E-GPA and were examined for the effects on both near and far transfer, (c) controlled group I(n=34): accepted non-intervention practices, and (d) controlled group II(n=30): accepted non-intervention practices but were examined for the effects on both near and far transfer.
The major instruments included “Computerized Problem Solving Ability Scale”, self-designed “Computerized Graduated Prompting Assessment System”, and ‘TONI-3. The data gathered was processed using t-test and F-test and the main findings were:
1.The “Computerized Problem Solving Ability Test” consisting of two factors and twenty-eight items showed good reliability and validity.
2.Data for a sample of 317 Pan-Atayal indigenous children at 6th grade showed a mean score of 9.21, a standard deviation of 4.64, and approximately 4.42 percent of the students met criteria for gifted identification.
3.No significant near and far transfer effects after GPA dynamic assessment were found for experimental group I, controlled group I, and II does not reveal near and far transfer.
4.Significant near and far transfer effects were found for experimental group II after the mediation under GPA and E-GPA, but a less prompt was used during the E-GPA mediation.
5.The finding in the experimental group II showed that the low functioning students benefit most from the experiment.
6.The use of computerized dynamic assessment may increase the participation of students with low socio-economic status/cultural diversity in gifted education programs so long as the implementation of the dynamic assessment include consideration of time for mediation, student’s motivation, opportunity to teach students problem-solving strategies and arrange environment to help them reduce distraction.

中文部分：
王文中（2005）。測驗與評量的意義與趨勢。載於王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧合著：教育測驗與評量—教室學習觀點（頁3-26）。臺北：五南。
王天佑（1999）。家庭背景與台灣原住民教育地位取得。載於洪泉湖、吳學燕（主 編），台灣原住民教育（頁31-52）。台北：師大書苑。
王天佑（2003）。家庭背景與教育對原漢族群薪資差異之影響。原住民教育季刊，29，29-56。
王曼娜（1997）。臺灣原住民國小學童學習潛能之釐測－運用動態評量模式。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
方麗美(2005)。泰雅織布藝術之研究。佛光人文社會學院藝術學研究所碩士論文，未出版，宜蘭。
台灣原住民族文化產業發展協會（2008）。2008全球原住民文化會議—泰雅族神話與圖騰。2010/03/26，取自：http://indigenous.pristine.net/peoples/atayal/totems_zh-tw.html
行政院內政部統計處（2010）。九十九年第八週內政部統計通報(98年底原住民人口概況)。2010/08/15，取自：http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/week/list.htm
行政院內政部統計月報（2010）。現住原住民人口按五歲年齡組分（戶籍登記現住原住民人口數按單齡組分）。2010/08/15，取自：http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/month/m1-08.xls
行政院原住民族委員會（2007）。民國95 年臺灣原住民經濟狀況調查報告。臺北市：行政院原住民族委員會。
行政院原住民族委員會（2010a）。原住民族分布。2010/08/26，取自：http://www.apc.gov.tw/main/docDetail/detail_ethnic.jsp?cateID=A001917&linkParent=8&linkSelf=327&linkRoot=8
行政院原住民族委員會（2010b）。認識原住民族。2010/08/30，取自：http://www.tipp.org.tw/formosan/population/population.jspx
行政院原住民族委員會（2010c）。98年原住民就業狀況調查。臺北市：行政院原住民族委員會。
田貴實（2008）。泰雅族與太魯閣族紋面藝術。台灣原Young，24，14-19。
江文慈（1993）。槓桿認知能力發展的評量與遷移歷程的分析—動態評量的應用。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
伊能嘉矩、粟野傳之丞（1900）。台灣蕃人事情。台北：台灣總督府民政部文書課。（http://jdlib.ntl.gov.tw/cgi-bin/browse.cgi?bookid=bjn00323國立台中圖書館日文舊籍數位典藏）
朱錦鳳（2002）。傳統紙筆測驗與電腦化測驗的比較。測驗年刊，49（1），75-87。
考選部（2009）。97年考選法規制度相關問題詢答。2009/10/07，取自：http://wwwc.moex.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=13828&ctNode=2335
任秀媚（1986）。山地單語與山地雙語兒童語文能力及智力之比較研究。新竹師專學報，13，241-256。
呂金燮（2005）。評量與教學目標的連結。載於王文中、呂金燮、吳毓瑩、張郁雯、張淑慧合著：教育測驗與評量—教室學習觀點（頁27-56）。臺北：五南。
宋卓立（2008）。台灣原住民太魯閣族族群意識變遷之研究。國立台灣師範大學政治學研究所國家事務與管理在職進修碩士專班碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
李亦園、徐人仁、宋龍生、吳燕和（1963）。南澳的泰雅人—民族學田野調查研究（上冊）。台北：中央研究院。
李淑華（2009）。電腦化課文摘要動態評量效益之探討。國立臺南大學測驗統計研究所碩士班，未出版，臺南。
里慕伊‧阿紀（2005）。泰雅族的起源。台灣原Young，11，8-11。
余安琪（2009）。賽德克族的文面與織布。原住民族季刊，3，82-87。
吳武典、胡心慈、蔡崇建、王振德、林幸台、郭靜姿（2006）。托尼非語文智力測驗-再版(TONI-3)指導手冊。臺北:心理出版社。
吳昆壽（1999）。資優殘障學生教育現況與問題調查研究。特殊教育與復健學報，7，1-32。
何榮桂（1990）。電腦教學系統中的測驗設計。中等教育，41(2)，29-34。
何榮桂（1996）。國際電腦化測驗發展趨勢之研究。發表於95年度考選制度研討會系列二「電腦測驗發展趨勢與國家考試電腦化測驗研討會」。臺北：台灣師範大學，2006/05/29。
何榮桂（1997）。從「測驗電腦化與電腦化測驗」再看網路化測驗。測驗與輔導，144， 2972-2974。
何榮桂（2000）。量身訂製的測驗－適性測驗。測驗與輔導，157，3288-3293。
何榮桂（2003）。電腦化動態評量系統之設計與評估(3/3)。國科會研究計畫（NSC 91-2520-S-003-016）。
何榮桂（2006）。互動式網路評量系統之設計與研究(3/3)。國科會研究計畫（NSC94-2520-S-003-001）
周天賜（1998）。動態評量：發展與改進兒童學習潛能的媒介式學習。台北：心理。
周倩、孫春在（1996）。遠距合作學習環境之設計與建立：CORAL經驗。教學科技與媒體，26，13-21。
孟瑛如（1996）：桃竹苗地區山地國小特殊兒童的轉介、鑑定與補救教學之現況探討研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所，台灣省教育廳委託專案研究報告（未發表），新竹。
林素微（2003）。國小高年級學童數感特徵暨數感動態評量發展之探討。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北。
林佳蓁（2007）。電腦化動態評量教學系統在高職一年級學生複數單元學習成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學數學教學碩士班，未出版，高雄。
林彥宏、謝哲仁（2002）。電腦建構分數概念學習之動態評量提示系統及成效分析。科學教育研究與發展，29，103-130。
林秋榮（2002）。電腦化動態評量對國小三年級學習障礙學生整數四則問題之研究。國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士班，未出版，臺中。　
林榮泰、唐硯漁、林俊雄（1999）：台灣地區原住民學生邏輯推理之相關研究。原住民教育季刊，17，52-63。
林麗惠(2000): 原住民與非原住民學童的認知風格、推理表現與問題解決表現之相關研究－以桃園縣平地國小學童為例。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所，未出版，新竹。
林璟豐（1990）。全球資訊網測驗題型之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
吳親恩、張振岳（1996）。人文花蓮。花蓮：花蓮洄瀾文教基金會。
洪麗晴（1996）：原住民與非原住民國小學童推理表現與其策略使用之差異研究。新竹師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
柯明家（2006）。不同評量方式對技職校院學生電腦輔助製造課程學習成效與邏輯思考能力之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育與技術學系碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
紀美慧（2006）。電腦化動態評量對國小五年級學生閱讀的理解能力與自我效能之影響。國立屏東教育大學教育科技研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
馬騰嶽（1998）。泰雅族文面圖譜。台北：攝影天地雜誌社。
徐芳立（1998）。提示系統對增進國中一年級學生自問自答策略與閱讀理解能力之成效研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學類碩士班，未出版，高雄。
國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所編譯（2008）。英特爾創新思考教育計畫。臺北：國立台灣師範大學。
郭東瑛（2000）。互動式多點計分評量系統之設計與評估。國立台灣師範大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
郭玉純（2005）。電腦化動態評量在國小六年級學童的梯形學習之應用與比較研究。國立臺中師範學院教育測驗統計研究所教學碩士論文，未出版，臺中。
郭靜姿、張蘭畹、王曼娜、盧冠每（2000）。文化殊異學生學習潛能評估之研究。特殊教育研究學刊，19，253-278。
郭靜姿、吳昆壽、王曼娜、范成芳、陳彥瑋(2009)。特殊群體資賦優異學生之鑑定調整與安置輔導模式。載於資優學生鑑定評量及安置要點訂定執行推動手冊，教育部特殊教育工作小組編印，1-43。
陳正哲、黃雅卿（2008）。泰雅族菱形紋飾之研究。商業設計學報，12，245-264。
陳志鴻（2005）。電腦化動態評量系統發展及在自然與生活科技領域教學之應用。 台北市立師範學院自然科學教學碩士班，未出版，台北市。
陳枝烈（1997）。台灣原住民教育。臺北：師大書苑。
陳桂霞、陳惠謙（2007）。電腦化動態評量在學習與遷移效益分析—以國小數學時間的計算單元為例。Journal of Information Technology and Applications，2（2），85-92。
陳淑渟（2008）。電腦化電路概念動態評量系統之發展。國立臺南大學測驗統計研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
陳新豐（2005）。傳統紙筆測驗與線上電腦化測驗試題參數估計差異之比較。教育研究與發展期刊，1(3)，123-145。
陳新豐（2007）。台灣學位電腦化測驗研究的回顧與展望。教育研究與發展期刊，3(4)， 217-248。
教育部（2003）。特殊教育法施行細則（民國92年8月7日修正）。
教育部（2004）。特殊教育法（民國93年6月23日修正）。
教育部（2006）。身心障礙及資賦優異學生鑑定標準（民國 95 年 09 月 29 日 修正）。
教育部（2007）。中華民國資優教育白皮書編訂。臺北：作者。
教育部（2008）。中華民國資優教育白皮書。臺北：作者。
教育部（2009a）。97學年原住民學生概況表。2009/10/29，取自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/ob1.xls
教育部（2009b）。97學年國民小學概況表。2009/10/29，取自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/e.xls
教育部（2009c）。97學年國民中學概況表。2009/10/29，取自：http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/b0013/j.xls
教育部（2009d）。特殊教育法（98年11月18日修正）。
教育部（2010）。原住民教育政策白皮書草案。臺北市：教育部。
許家吉（1994）。電腦化動態圖形歸類測驗發展之研究。國立臺南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
張英鵬（民90）。原住民特殊教育學童之調查研究。特殊教育與復健學報，9，1-28。
張麗芬（1995）。學前幼兒的類比推理能力。屏東師院學報，8，527-560.
莊麗娟（2000）。系統化多元評量模式之發展研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，高雄。
黃幸美（1995a）。兒童在數學問題上的類比推理思考之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
黃幸美（1995b）。類比推理思考及其在教學上之應用。教育研究資訊，3（3），128-142.
黃淑津、鄭麗玉（2004）。電腦化動態評量對國小五年級學生閱讀理解效能之研究。國民教育研究學報，12，167-201。
達西烏拉彎‧畢馬（田哲益）（2001）。台灣的原住民—泰雅族。台北市：台原。
彭彥翔（2006）。以漸進提示法為基礎之國小數學科電腦化動態評量。亞洲大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中。
曾慧敏、鍾金燕（2007）。美國電腦化測驗發展。國家菁英季刊，3(3)，73-88。
游麗卿（1998）。Vygotsky對研究概念發展的啟示。幼教天地，15， 277-239。
趙中麒（2004）。民族想像與/或民族復振：太魯閣（族）分離/正名運動的意義與困境。思與言，42（4），161-200。
楊亨利、應鳴雄（2005）。線上測驗是否有可能具備與紙筆測驗相同評分效力？師大學報：教育科學類， 50(2)，85-107。
廖永堃（2001）。原住民學生多元才能探尋模式之研究。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
臺北市政府原住民事務委員會（2009）。泰雅族服飾。2010/03/26，取自：http://www.sight-native.taipei.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1001095&CtNode=17411&mp=cb01
潘繼道（2000）。日據前台灣太魯閣族群的發展。歷史月刊，9月號，14-21。
潘繼道（2001）。日據時期台灣太魯閣族群的反抗血淚。歷史月刊，9月號，20-26。
蔡世宏（2007）。電腦化測驗介入動態評量之研究—以「晝夜與四季」概念學習為例。國立嘉義大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
劉瑞超（2006）。紋面的印記—認識泰雅族。台灣原Young，13，7-15。
鄭明長（1998）。教改浪潮下的教學革新—社會文化學派的學習觀。載於國立新竹教育大學人力資源教育處主編：教育改革的理念與作法（地方教育輔導叢書70輯）（頁195-227）。新竹：新竹教育大學。
鄭光博（2006）。從祖源觀念爭議論當代泰雅族歷史記憶的建構。國立政治大學民族學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
盧台華（1995）。殘障資優學生身心障礙特質研究。特殊教育研究學刊，13，203-219。
蕭惠云（2003）。互動式提示虛擬題庫中介練習系統之設計與評估。國立台灣師範大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
譚光鼎(1996) 。探討少數民族教育成就的理論模式。花蓮師院學報， 6， 25-72。
譚光鼎（1998）。原住民教育研究。臺北：五南。
譚光鼎（2002）。臺灣原住民教育－從廢墟到重建。台北：師大書苑。
簡月梅（1997）。互動式提示多點計分電腦化適性測驗。國立台灣師範大學資訊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
簡如邠（2008）。泰雅族的紋面藝術。原住民族季刊，3，86-89。
謝佩均（2001）。原住民國小高低學業成就生學習適應之比較。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。

英文部分：
American Psychological Association. (1986). Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington, DC: Author.
Anguiano, L. (2003). Underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Multicultural Education, 11(1), 32-34.
Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Intellectual assessment of children from culturally diverse backgrounds. School Psychology Review, 21(4), 552-565.
Bailey, D., & Harbin, G. (1980). Nondiscriminatory evaluation. Exceptional Children, 46, 590-596.
Baker, E. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Computer-based assessment of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 269-282.
Baker, E. L., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (2002). Measuring problem solving in computer environments: Current and future states. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 609-622.
Baldwin, A. Y. (1987). Undiscovered diamonds: The minority gifted child. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10(4), 271-285.
Baldwin, A. Y. (1994). The seven plus story: Developing hidden talent among students in socieconomically disadvantaged environments. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(2), 80-84.
Baldwin, A. Y. (2005). Identification concerns and promises for gifted students of diverse populations. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 105-114.
Begoray, D., & Slovinsky, K. (1997). Pearls in shells: Preparing teachers to accommodates gifted low income populations. Roeper Review, 20(1), 45-49.
Berman, J., & Graham, L. (2002). School counselor use of curriculum-based dynamoic assessment. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 12(1), 21-40.
Bermudez, A. B., & Rakow, S. J. (1993). Examining identification and instruction practices for gifted and talented limited English proficient students. In Lillian M. Malave (Ed.), Annual conference journal: Proceedings of the National Association for Bilingual Education Conferences (Tucson, AZ, 1990; Washington, DC, 1991), pp. 99-114. (ERIC Document Reproduction Series No. ED 360871)
Bernal, E. (2002). Three ways to achieve a more equitable representation of culturally and linguistically different students in GT programs. Roeper Review, 24(2), 59-62.
Bjorklund, D. F. (2005). Children’s thinking: Cognitive development and individual differences(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Bocij, P., & Greasley, A. (1999). Can computer-based testing achieve quality and efficiency in assessment? International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 1-17.
Bodmann, S. M., & Robinson, D. H. (2004). Speed and performance differences among computer-based and paper-pencil tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 51-60.
Bolig, E. E., & Day, J. D.(1993). Dynamic assessment and giftedness: The promise of assessing training responsiveness. Roeper Review, 16(2), 110-113.
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(4), 164-171.
Borland, J. H., Schnur, R., & Wright, L. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 13-32.
Bransford, J. D., Delclos, V. R., Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1987). State of the art and future directions. In C. S. Lidz (Ed), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 479-496). New York: The Guilford Press.
Brice, A. B., & Brice, R. (2004). Identifying Hispanic gifted children: A screening. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(1), 8-15.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist, 14(10), 1059-1068.
Budoff, M. (1972). Measuring learning potential: An alternative to the traditional intelligence test. Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational Problems, Cambridge Mental Health Association. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED 085962)
Buddoff, M. (1974). Learning potential and educability among the educable mentally retarded. Final Report Project No. 312312. Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational Problems, Cambridge Mental Health Association.
Budoff, M. (1987a). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 52-81). New York: The Guilford Press.
Budoff, M. (1987b). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C. S. Lidz (Ed), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173-195). New York: The Guilford Press.
Budoff, M., & Friedman, M. (1964). Learning potential as an assessment approach to the adolescent mentally retarded. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28(5), 434-439.
Budoff, M., & Pagell, W. (1968). Learning potential and rigidity in the adolescent mentally retarded. Journal at Abnormal Psychology, 73(5), 479-486.
Bugbee, Jr., & Alan, C. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-289.
Bunderson, C. V., Inouye D. K., ＆ Olsen, J. B.(1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.) Educational measurement(3rd ed., pp.367-407). New York : American Council on Education.
Burns, M. S., Vye, N. J., Bransford, J. D., Delclos, V., & Ogan, T. (1987). Static and dynamic measures of learning in young handicapped children. Diagnostique, 12, 59-73.
Burstein, N. D., & Cabello, B. (1989). Preparing teachers to work with culturally diverse students: Another educational model. Journal of Teacher Education, 540(5), 9-16.
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254-270.
Callaban, C. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 98-104.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-115). New York: The Guilford Press.
Cantillon, P., Irish, B., & Sales, D. (2004). Using computers for assessment in medicine. British Medical Journal, 329(7466), 606-609.
Carlson, J. S. (1983). Applications of dynamic assessment to cognitive and perceptual functioning of three ethnic groups. Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED 233040)
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1980). Dynamic assessment: An approach toward reducing test bias. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western. Psychological Association(Honolulu, HI, May 5-9, 1980) (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED 191884)
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1992). The dynamic assessment of intelligence. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment(pp.167-186). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cavazos, L. F. (2002). Emphasizing performance goals and high-quality education for all students. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 690-697.
Chaffey, G. W. (2002). Identifying Australian aboriginal children with high academic potential using dynamic testing. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of New England, Australia.
Chaffey, G. W., Halliwell, G., & McCluskey, K. W. (2006). Identifying high academic potential in Canadian aboriginal primary school children. Gifted and Talented International, 21(2), 61-70.
Chen, C. (1999). A protocol analysis model for investigating computer supported problem-solving activities. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 17(2), 35-43.
Choi, S. W., & Thinkler, T. (2002, April). Evaluating comparability of paper-and pencil and computer-based assessment in a K-12 setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, New Orleans.
Chung, G. K. W. K., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., & Herl, H. E. (1999). The use of computer-based collaborative knowledge maping to measure team processes and team outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 463-493.
Clasen, D. R. (2006). Project STREAM: A 13-year follow-up of a pre-college program for middle- and high-school underrepresented. Roeper Review, 29(1), 55-63.
Clasen, D. R., Middleton, J. A., & Connell, T. J. (1994). Assessing artistic and problem-solving performance in minority and nonminority students using a nontraditional multidimensional approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 27-37.
Coleman, M. R., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students within an RtI framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14-17.
Das, J. P., & Conway, R. N. F. (1992). Reflections on remediation and transfer: A Vygotskian perspective. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds), Interactive assessment(pp.94-115). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2003). The psychology of problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Day, J. D. (1983). The zone of proximal development. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological functions (pp. 155-175). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Deloache, J. S., Miller, K. F., & Pierroutsakos, S L. (2006). Reasoning and problem solving. W. Damon(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology(Vol.2, pp.801-850). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dewberry, C. (2001). Performance disparities between whites and ethnic minorities: Real differences or assessment bias? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 659-673.
Elisha, Y. B., & Budoff, M. (1974). Sensitivity and validity of learning-potential measurement in three levels of ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3), 439-447.
Elliott, J. G. (2000). Dynamic assessment in educational contexts: Purpose and promise. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott(Eds), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications(vol. 6)(pp. 713-740). New York: Elsevier Science.
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). New York: The Guilford Press.
Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment. 8(4), 341-349.
Embretson, S. E. (2000). Multidimensional measurement from dynamic tests: Abstract reasoning under stress. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(4), 505-542.
Fabio, R. A. (2005). Dynamic assessment of intelligence is a better reply to adaptive behavior and cognitive plasticity. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(1), 41-64.
Feiring, C. F., Louis, B., Ukeje, I., Lewis, M., & Leong, P. (1997). Early identification of gifted minority kindergarten students in Newark, NJ. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 76-82.
Ferrara, R. A., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Children’s learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of proximal development. Child Development, 57, 1087-1099.
Ferretti, R. P., & Butterfield, E. C. (1992). Intelligence-reated differentces in the learning, maintenance, and transfer of problem-solving starteries. Intelligence, 16, 207-223.
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.
Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Rand, Y., & Jensen, M. R. (1981). Can evolving techniques better measure cognitive change? The Journal of Special Education, 15(2), 201-219.
Feuerstein, R., Rand,Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., Egozi, M., & Shachar-Segev, N. M. (1991). Intervention programs for retard performers: Goals, means, and expected outcomes. In l. Idol & B. F. Jones(Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform(pp. 139-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Jensen, M., Kaniel, S., & Tzuriel, D. (1987). Prerequisites for assessment of learning potential: The LPAD model. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 35-51). New York: The Guilford Press.
Fletcher, P., & Collins, M. J. (1987). Computer administered versus written tests: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 6(2), 38-43.
Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Ortiz, S. O. O. (2006). Cultural competence in the use of IQ tests with culturally and linguistically diverse children. Gifted Education Internal, 21(2/3), 137-150.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14.
Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2001). Providing access for gifted culturally diverse students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 217-225.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008, April 2). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education. Retrieved October, 11, 2009, from the World Wide Web: http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1322348/culturally_and_linguistically_diverse_students_in_gifted_education/
Ford, D. Y., & Harmon, D. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12(3), 141-148.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris III, J. J. (1990). On discovering the hidden treasure of gifted and talented black children. Roeper Review, 13(1), 27-32.
Frasier, M. M. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 155-180.
Fraiser, M. M. (1989). Poor and minority students can be gifted too. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 16-18.
Frasier, M. M., Garcia, J., & Passow, A. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students(RM-95204). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, Research Monograph.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Bouton, B., Caffrey, E., & Hill, L. (2007). Dynamic assessment as responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 58-63.
Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 355-392.
Gronlund, N. E. (1998). Assessment of student achievement. Boston, M. A.: Allyn & Bacon.
Guthke, J., & Beckmann, J. F. (2000). The learning test concept and its application in practice. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 17–69). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: a tutorial. Language, Speech and Hearing Service in Schools, 32, 212-224.
Hadaway, N., & Marek-Schroer, M. F. (1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority students’. Roeper Review, 15(2), 73-77.
Haywood, H. C. (1992). Interactive assessment: A special issue. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 233-234.
Haywood, H. C., & Brown, A. L. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 411-422.
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
Haywood, H. C., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 40-63.
Hébert, T. P. (2002). Educating gifted children from low socioeconomic backgrounds: Creating visions of a hopeful future. Exceptionality, 10(2), 127-138.
Hickson, J., & Skuy, M. (1990). Creativity and cognitive modifiability in gifted disadvantaged pupils. School Psychology International, 11, 295-301.
Humphries, T., Krogh, K., & Makay, R. (2001). Theoretical and practical considerations in the psychological and educational assessment of the student with intractable epilepsy: Dynamic assessment as an adjunct to static assessment. Seizure, 10, 173-180.
Hunsaker, S. (1994). Adjustments to traditional procedural for identifying underserved students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 72-76.
Jensen, M. R., & Feuerstein, R. (1987). The learning potential assessment device: From philosophy to practice. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 379-402). New York: The Guilford Press.
Jitendra, A. K., & Kameenui, E. J. (1993). An exploratory study of dynamic assessment involving two instructional strategies on experts and novices’ performance in solving part-whole mathematical word problem. Diagnostique, 18, 305-324.
Johesen, S. K. (1997). Assessment beyond definitions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3&4), 136-152.
Johesen, S. K. (2009). Practices for identifying gifted students. Principle, May/June, 9-14.
Johnson, L. G. (1983). Giftedness in preschool: A better time for development than identification. Roeper Review, 5(4), 13-15.
Kahney, H. (1993). Problem solving: Current issues(2nd ed.). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Kanevsky, L., & Geake, J. (2004). Inside the zone of proximal development: Validating a multifactor model of learning potential with gifted student and their peers. Journal for the Educational of the Gifted, 28(2), 182-217.
Kaniel, S., & Reichenberg, R., (1990). Dynamic assessment and cognitive program for disadvantaged gifted children. Gifted Education International, 7(1), 9-15.
Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1998). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(3), 140-147.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the European Association for Research on learning and instruction. Fribourg, Switzerland.
Kröner, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2005). Intelligence assessment with computer simulations. Intelligence, 33, 347-368.
Kuo, C. C., Chang, L. W., & Wang, M. N. (2008). Mediating strategy of learning for children of culturally diverse and disadvantage. The Korean Journal of thinking & Problem Solving, 18(1), 35-44.
Laughon, P. (1990). The dynamic assessment of intelligence: A review of three approaches. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 459-470.
Lee, J., Moreno, K. E., & Sympson, J. B. (1986). The effects of mode of test administration on test performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(2), 467-473.
LeRose, R. P. (1978). A quota system for gifted minority children: A viable solution. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(3), 394-403.
Leutner, D. (2003). The fuzzy relationship of intelligence and problem solving in computer simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 685-697.
Lewis, J. D., DeCamp-Fritson, S. S., Ramage, J. C., McFarland, M. A., & Archwamety, T. (2007). Selecting for ethnically diverse children who may be gifted using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices and Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test. Multicultural Education, 15, 38-42.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Historical perspectives. In C. S. Lidz (Ed), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 3-32). New York: The Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. G.. (2000). Introduction. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott(Eds), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications(vol. 6)(pp. 3-13). New York: Elsevier Science.
Lidz, C. S., & Macrine, S. L. (2001). An alternative approach to the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International, 22(1), 74-96.
Lohman, D. F., Korb, K. A., & Lakin, J. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275-296.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practice testing problems. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erbium Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition(2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests: A Review of the literature. (College Board Report No. 88-8, ETS RR No.88-21). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103-111.
McCormack, D., & Jones, D. (1997). Building a Web-Based Education System. New York: Wiley.
McKenna, M. A., Hollingsworth, P. L., & Barnes, L. L. B. (2005). Developing latent mathematics abilities in economically disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 27(4), 222-227.
McKenzie, J. A. (1986). The influence of identification practices, race and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 93-95.
Mills, C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 209-217.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 116-140). New York: The Guilford Press.
Missiuna, C., & Samuels, M. (1989). Dynamic assessment: Review and critique. Special Services in the Schools, 5(1/2), 1–12.
Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M.S., Baughman, W. A., & Marks, M. A. (1994). Creativity and problem solving: Cognition, adaptability, and wisdom. Roeper Review, 16(4), 241-246.
Murphy, R., & Maree, D. J.F. (2006). A review of south African research in the field of dynamic assessment. South African Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 168-191.
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test(NNAT). Roeper Review, 47(2), 155-160.
Naglieri, J. A. (1999). The essentials of CAS assessment. New York: Wiley.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Neill, N. T. (1993). Computer-based testing with Question Mark professional. Computer Education, 74, 23-26.
Neumeister, K. L. S., Adms, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Educational of the Gifted, 30(4), 479-499.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). Perspectives on computer-based performance assessment of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(3-4), 255-268.
O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Chuang, S., & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issue in the computer-based assessment for collaborative problem solving. Assessment in Education, 10, 361-373.
Okland, T., & Rossen, E. (2005). A 21st-centry model for identifying students for gifted and talented programs in light of national conditions: An emphasis on race and ethnicity. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 56-63.
Olsen, J. B., Maynes, D. D., Slawaon, D., & Ho, K. (1989). Comparison of paper-administered, computer-administered and computerized adaptive achievement tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 311-326.
Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and dusadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18(3), 198-202.
Pierce, R. L., Adams, M., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Cross, T. L. (2007). Development of an identification procedure for a large urban school corporation: Identifying culturally diverse and academically gifted elementary students. Roeper Review, 29(2), 113-118.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg(Eds.), The psychology of problem solving(pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Cambridge.
Psychological Testing Centre. (2006, Auguest 31). Guidelines on the development and use of computer based assessments. Retrieved June, 19, 2009, from the World Wide Web: http://www.psychtesting.org.uk/download$.cfm?file_uuid=64877B7B-CF1C-D577-971D-425278FA08CC&siteName=ptc
Reed, S. K. (2000). Thinking: Problem solving. In A. E. Kazdin(Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology(Vol. 8, pp.71-75). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Reeff, J., Zabal, A., & Blech, C. (2006, July 31). The assessment of problem-solving competencies: A draft version of a general framework. Retrieved March, 23, 2009, from the World Wide Web: http://www.die-bonn.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-2006/reeff06_01.pdf
Reschly, D. J. (2002). Change dynamics in special education assessment: Historical and contemporary patterns. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 117-136.
Reyes, E. I., & Fletcher, R. (1996). Developing local multidimensional screening procedures for identifying giftedness among Mexican American border population. Roeper Review, 18(3), 208-211.
Richardson, M., Baird, J., Ridgway, J., Ripley, M., Shorrocks-Taylor, D., & Swan, M. (2002). Challenging minds? Students’ perceptions of computer-based World Class Tests of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 633-649.
Richert, E. S. (1985). Identification of gifted children in the United States: The need for pluralistic assessment. Roeper Review, 8(2), 68-72.
Richert, E. S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted children. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(4), 149-154.
Robinson-Zanartu, C. A., & Aganza, J. S. (2000). Dynamic assessment and sociocultural context: Assessing the world child. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott(Eds), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications(vol. 6)(pp. 443-488). New York: Elsevier Science.
Rollins, K., Mursky, C. V., Shah-Coltrane, S., & Johnsen, S. K. (2009). RtI models for gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 20-30.
Roy, E. (1992). Evaluating placement exams with a structured decision system. Computers and Composition,9(2), 71-86.
Ryan, J. S. (1983). Identifying intellectually superior black children. Journal of Educational Research, 76(3), 153-156.
Samuels, M. T., Killip, S. M., MacKenzie, H., & Fagan, J. (1992). Evaluating preschool programs: The role of dynamic assessment. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds), Interactive assessment(pp.251-271). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sarouphim, K. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 30-33.
Schacter, J., Herl, H. E., Chung, G. K. W. K., Dennis, R. A., & O’Neil, H. F., Jr. (1999). Computer-based performance assessment: A solution to the narrow measurement and reporting of problem-solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 403-418.
Schroth, S. T., & Helfer, J. A. (2008). Identifying gifted students: Educator beliefs regarding various policies, processes, and procedures. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(2), 155-179.
Scott, M. S., & Delgado, C. F. (2005). Identifying cognitively gifted minority students in preschool. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(3), 199-270.
Scott, M. S., Deuel, L. S., Jean-Francois, B., & Urbano, R. C. (1996). Identifying cognitively gifted ethnic minority children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(3), 147-153.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1988). Acquisition and transfer of learning strategies by gifted and nongifted students. The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 153-166.
Skuy, M., Gaydon, V., Hoffenberg, S., & Fridjhon, P. (1990). Predictors of performance of disadvantaged adolescents in a gifted program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(3), 97-101.
Skuy, M., Gewer, A., Osrin, Y., Khunou, D., Fridjhon, P., & Rushton, J. P. (2002). Effects of mediated learning experience on Raven’s matrices scores of African and non-African university students in south Africa. Intelligence, 30, 221-232.
Skuy, M., Kaniel, S., & Tzuriel, D. (1988). Dynamic assessment of intellectually superior Israeli children in a low socio-economic status community. Gifted Education International, 5(2), 90-96.
Smith, L., & Puttcamp, C. (2005). Discovering treasures: One disuict’s efforts identify under-represented gifted students. Parenting for High Potential, March, 6-9/28-29.
Solso, R. L., Maclin, O. H., & Maclin, M. K. (2008). Cognitive psychology(8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stallings, C. (1972). Gifted disadvantaged children. Storrs, The University of Connecticut. (ERIC Document Reproduction Series No. ED 073582)
Stantly, N. V., Seigel, J., Cooper, L., & Marshell, K. (1995). Identification of gifted with the dynamic assessment procedure. Gifted Education International, 10(2), 85-87.
Steinberg, E. R., Baskin, A. B., & Hofer, L. (1986). Organizational/memory tools: A technique for improving problem solving skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(2), 169-187.
Stephens, D. (2001). Use of computer assisted assessment: Benefits to students and staff. Education for Information, 19(4), 265-275.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied: Understanding and increasing your intellectual skills. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanvich.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Thinking: Problem solving. In A. E. Kazdin(Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology(Vol. 8, pp. 68-71). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5), 325-338.
Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive psychology(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (2002). Dynamic testing : The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Swanson, H. L. (1993). Using the cognitive processing test to assess ability: Development of a dynamic assessment measure. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 672-693.
Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321-363.
Twomey, E., & Miller, P. (1996). Computer-based assessment: An introduction. Life Sciences Educational Computing, 7(1), 5-8.
Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385-435.
Tzuriel, D. (2001a). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tzuriel, D. (2001b). Dynamic assessment of learning potential. In J. Andrews, D. H. Saklofske, & H. L. Janzen(Eds). Handbook of psychoeducational assessment : Ability, achievement, and behavior in children(pp. 451-496). San Diego : Academic Press.
Tzuriel, D. (2001c). Dynamic assessment is not dynamic testing. Issue in Education, 7(2), 237-249.
Tzuriel, D., & Feuerstein, R. (1992). Dynamic group assessment for prescriptive teaching: Differential effect of treatment. In H.C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.). Interactive Assessment (pp.187-206). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tzuriel, D., & Haywood, H. C. (1992). The development of interactive-dynamic approaches to assessment of learning potential. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds), Interactive assessment(pp.3-35). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tzuriel, D., & Kaufman, R. (1999). Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability : Dynamic assessment of young Ethiopian immigrants in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 359-380.
Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 21-32.
Ukrainetz, T. A., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 31, 142-154.
Utley, C. A., Haywood, H. C., & Masters, J. C. (1992). Policy implications of psychological assessment of minority children. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel(Eds.), Interactive assessment(pp. 445-469). New York: Springer.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Finding from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46(2), 110-123.
Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). A comprehensive approach to assessing intellectually handicapped children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 327-359). New York: The Guilford Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processs(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ward, T. J., Hooper, S. R., & Hannafin, K. M. (1989). The effect of computerized tests on the performance and attitudes of college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(3), 327-333.
Weinberg, R. A. (1989). Intelligence and IQ: Landmark issues and great debates. American Psychologist, 44(2), 98-104.
Wirth, J., & Klieme, E. (2003). Computer-based assessment of problem solving competence. Assessment in Education, 10(3), 229-345.
Wise, S. L., Barnes, L. B., Harvey, A., & Plake, B. S. (1989). The effects of computer anxity and computer experience on the computer-based achievement test performance of college students. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 235-241.
Yancey, E. (1983). Increasing participation of minority and culturally diversity students in gifted programs. Washington, D. C. : American University, Mid-Atlantic Center for Sex Equity.
Yeomans, J. (2008). Dynamic assessment practice: Some suggestions for ensuring follow up. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(2), 105-114.
Yoon, S. Y., & Gentry, M. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121-136.