Volume 34 Number 2
Winter 1995

American Indian/Alaska Native students, historically and currently, have been overrepresented in special education programs and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs. Educational assessment practices have been identified as being critical to improving education for American Indian/Alaska Native children and families (Indian Nations At Risk [INAR] Task Force, 1991). Recent legislation, such as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1986 (PL 99-457), is indicative of a growing national awareness regarding the importance of early intervention programs that are amenable to the diverse interests and needs of family systems. Such services are being provided to increasingly younger American Indian/Alaska Native populations; this will require educators and the Nations' leaders to address the assessment issue even more critically.

Service delivery is typically initiated by a referral, with subsequent screening tests conducted. Then, contingent upon the results, a rigorous assessment process follows. Types of assessments may include standardized norm-referenced, criterion/curriculum-based, ecological and judgment-based instruments, used in isolation or in various combinations. Traditionally, standardized norm-referenced assessments have dominated eligibility for service delivery to school-aged children; such practices are increasingly critiqued as inappropriate when one considers cultural and early childhood issues (Bagnato & Neisworth, 1991; Benner, 1992; Brescia & Fortune, 1989; Lidz, 1992).

Cultural and Early Developmental Considerations in Assessment

Cultural variations that introduce bias into standardized testing procedures are numerous as reflected by litigation and educational research. The majority of attention seems to be focused on experiential background differences of minorities in contrast to populations from which norms have been developed (Samuda, Kong, Cummins, Lewis, & Pascual-Leone, 1989). The extent to which an individual's background differs from the norming population of a given instrument may result in educational decisions that are tenuous at best (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1988). Additionally, testing conditions such as degree of familiarity with the examiner (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1989) and language competency in both first and second languages (Benner, 1992; Harry, 1992; Manni, Winikur, & Keller, 1984; Samuda et al., 1989) may be confounded with experiential differences. Use of a standardized instrument based on a standard or reference group with populations not included in the "norm-reference" group results in a host of problems.

Problems inherent in serving culturally diverse populations are further compounded when considerations important to early development are added. The focus of assessment in early intervention is program planning and evaluation. Standardized instruments are designed primarily for decisions related to diagnosis and eligibility (Bagnato & Neisworth, 1991; Manni et al., 1984). Diagnosis with infants and young children is tentative at best and provides a relatively small amount of information that is useful for program planning (Neisworth & Bagnato, 1992; Salvia & Hughes, 1990). Professional programs treat the child's and family's needs, not the diagnosis per se; thus, determining eligibility does not provide useful information to address family/child needs and interests, which is the whole point of early intervention. The development of Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSP) requires an assessment process that will provide the basis for effective programming and program evaluation. Typical norm-referenced instruments used for eligibility determination do not provide useful curricular content. Assessment items that are psychometrically useful for sorting children for eligibility purposes are often useless for instruction; for example, stringing beads, standing on one foot, or stacking blocks are not skills to be taught.

Survey research indicates that psychologists who are involved with early intervention programs use standardized intelligence tests (e.g., Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 1969; Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational. Battery-Preschool Cluster, 1977; McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities, 1972). However, exceptional infants and preschoolers require alternative assessment instruments to determine capabilities, eligibility, and appropriate objectives for IFSP development (Bagnato & Neisworth, 1991; Johnson & Beauchamp, 1987; Lidz, 1992; Neisworth & Bagnato, 1992; NASP/APA Preschool Interest Group, 1987). The continued use of standardized assessment practices is inappropriate for early childhood program planning and evaluation. This is especially true when we compound the problem by assessing young, exceptional, culturally diverse children and families (Bagnato & Neisworth, 1991; Bracken, 1987; Ittenbach, Harrison, & Deck, 1989).

American Indian/Alaska Native families represent a diversity of cultures. There are over 500 federally recognized American Indian/Alaska Native Nations and numerous Nations that have not obtained federal recognition located throughout the United States, in both urban and rural settings. Furthermore, there are over 190 different native languages. Heterogeneity among these populations is manifested in part by diversity among these numerous cultures with respect to differences in family systems and childrearing practices that also differ from the dominant society (Harry, 1992). Educators and leaders are challenged by the heterogeneity of American Indian/Alaska Native populations when they attempt to ensure appropriate educational service delivery.

Enculturation and assimilation have competing influences on the heterogeneity of American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Enculturation is the process whereby characteristics of a given culture (i.e., values, beliefs, interaction styles, language, types of foods eaten, dress, etc.) are transmitted and subsequently acquired. "Every function in the cultural development of the child appears on the stage twice, on two planes. First, on the social plane, and then on the psychological; first, between people, and then inside the child" (Vygotsky, as cited in Darydov, 1995); thus, cultural transmission is a complex collaborative sharing of knowledge. The complexity of this process can be further illuminated when one considers constructs of macrocultures and microcultures. For example, there is the U.S. 'macroculture' within which are numerous microcultures distinguished by characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and geographical location. In turn, if one considers the American Indian/Alaska Native populations as the 'macroculture' where there are shared cultural patterns across all members, there are also distinct cultural patterns within the numerous microcultures. Characteristics such as geographical location, residency (i.e., urban, suburban, rural), Nation membership, clan membership, and language form distinctness among microcultures (see Figure 1). Macrocultures and microcultures are relative constructs; they are defined differently depending on the populations one is examining and generalizing to. Additionally, enculturation occurs at both the macro and micro cultural levels. Whereas heterogeneity is sustained through enculturation, homogeneity is obtained and maintained through assimilation. Assimilation is the process whereby the microcultures fade or disappear such that they can no longer be distinguished from the macroculture (i.e., the macro subsumes the micro or the macro changes some of its features to be closer to those of the micro) (Gollnick & Chinn, 1986). If one considers the U. S. as the 'macroculture' and adhere to the microcultures' characteristics (i.e., Nation membership, clan membership, religious practices, interaction styles, etc.), are at one end of the continuum. At the other end are families who are fully assimilated, speaking only English, and adhere to the macrocultures' characteristics. Families may fit anywhere along the continuum.

The heterogeneity of American Indian/Alaska Natives described above, can be observed within the context of family life for both urban and rural peoples; therefore, American Indian/Alaska Native children are often raised within unique family systems (Tafoya, 1989). Extended families include siblings (brothers, sisters, cousins, unrelated children) and multiple caregivers (great aunts or uncles, grandparents, biological parents, or unrelated community members serving as primary caregivers) involved in total family participation in childrearing and support (Ryan, 1981; Tafoya, 1989). Within some traditional families, for example, there is no word for cousin or stepchild, only brother or sister. A broad conceptualization of the term sibling exists, and responsibility for familial harmony is shared by all members. Traditional teaching, or, more accurately, guiding that occurs throughout childrearing, is often accomplished through the sharing of stories and legends. Children are encouraged to refrain from asking questions when they grow up; rather, they are to "watch, listen, and wait, and the answer will come to you. It's yours then, not like in school" (Bird, 1975, p. xxi). Learning is viewed by many American Indian/Alaska Natives as a process, rather than a product. American Indian/Alaska Native and some non-native educators view the process as an integral part of American Indian/Alaska Native religion and philosophy, and it exerts an important influence on the educational practices that take place within the home.

A case scenario that often occurs during the assessment of young American Indian/Alaska Native children reflects attention to the letter but not the "spirit" of the law (PL 99-457). For example, children are often assessed by a psychologist, an early childhood special educator, a speech and language pathologist, and occupational or physical therapist separately, with professionals using standardized norm-referenced instruments developed for their particular domains. Such multidisciplinary testing of American Indian/Alaska Native students has been shown to underestimate their potentials (Brescia & Fortune, 1989). As a result, American Indian/Alaska Native families and the professionals who work with them have been voicing concerns about separate multiple assessment practices at educational summits and conferences. Problems (i.e., disproportionate placement in special education and gifted and talented programs) associated with current practices need not be perpetuated; rather, alternatives should be pursued. It is imperative that alternative practices incorporate both treatment utility (Hays, Nelson, & Jarrett, 1987) and social validity (Wolf, 1978) to help correct the historical cultural mismatches in educational service delivery to American Indian/Alaska Native children. Treatment utility of assessment refers to the extent to which assessment practices lead to the development of program goals and objectives that are useful, practical, and functional. Social validity of assessment refers to and American Indian/Alaska Native populations as 'microcultures', one can readily examine attempts at assimilation into mainstream American society by analyzing American education of tribal people. Historically, and arguably currently, American educational practices have had assimilation into mainstream American society as a priority goal for indigenous people:

The pursuit of homogeneity (i.e., assimilation) by the macroculture at the expense of microcultures may in turn effect changes in the macroculture which could work out to be either beneficial or detrimental.

Cultural heterogeneity among American Indian/Alaska Native populations may best be described by envisioning a continuum. Traditional families who communicate primarily in their native language, with little or no command of English, the extent to which assessment practices and results are viewed by family members and other caregivers as acceptable, meaningful, and important. Alternative assessment procedures are being developed and researched, including play-based, curriculum-based, performance-based, and dynamic assessment that address the issues of utility and validity.

Dynamic Assessment as a Preferred Alternative

Dynamic assessment (DA) has been suggested as a preferred approach by numerous authors for assessing culturally diverse populations in light of its flexibility, process orientation, and language independence (Benner, 1992; Harry, 1992; Lidz, 1987, 1992; Samuda et at., 1989). This paper will (a) provide a definition and description of DA, (b) explain the application of DA with culturally diverse populations and its advantages over traditional methods, and (c) review empirical studies related to the use of DA as a preferred alternative to traditional methods for young exceptional American Indian/Alaska Native children and their families.

What is Dynamic Assessment?

The term dynamic assessment is used to describe psychoeducational assessment procedures (not specific tests or instruments) that are characterized by test-teach-test sequences and a process rather than product orientation. In addition, DA procedures include (a) teaching and learning of generalizable cognitive processes, (b) identifying specific obstacles that impede effective learning and performance, and (c) distinguishing between performance and potential (Haywood, Brown, & Wingenfeld, 1990). The common theory underlying DA is that of cognitive modifiability and mediated learning experience (MLE) (Feuerstein, 1979). Cognitive modifiability theory is based on the assumption that intelligence is not static, and that the degree of mediation needed to affect change in learning will result in a measurement of learning potential. Feuerstein (1979) hypothesizes that the major factor that affects variability in the modifiability of children's cognitive functioning is the amount and type of MLE provided. MLE is a process in which the adult mediates or modifies stimuli so as to assist the child in organizing or deriving meaning from the learning environment (Feuerstem, 1979; Lidz, 1987).

The mediation provided by adult or more capable peer guidance is theoretically grounded in Vygotsky's (1978) conceptualization of the "zone of proximal development" (ZPD).

The literature base supporting the importance of ZPD for maximizing instruction and assessment which is "authentic" (i.e., socially, culturally, and academically relevant) is growing. For example, a well known project that embraced Vygotsky's ZPD is the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program (KEEP). Cultural compatibility was a key organizing concept and aim for improving school achievement of Native Hawaiian children identified as "at risk". The success of KEEP can be attributed in part to the ethnographic analysis of the socialization of Hawaiian children and the embedded construct of ZPD utilized to effect change in instructional styles and classroom context (i.e., highly peer-oriented small group learning center approach vs teacher-centered, intensive one-to-one instruction). The result is "an educational program which is compatible with Hawaiian culture at points critical for effective learning" (Jordan, 1984, pp. 59-60).

Members of the KEEP collected and analyzed data on reading achievement among others. Prior to the implementation of KEEP-developed programs reading achievement mean score of 27th percentile was typical; however, after implementation for four years (1st-3rd grades) reading achievement across all grades and classes indicated a mean score of 53 percentile for the KEEP classes and 32 percentile for control classes. Jordan (1984) states that the guiding principle of KEEP "has been not to attempt to change the children to fit the school but rather to change the school to fit the children" (pp. 61-62) (Cook, 1983; Jordan, 1985). Other researchers and practitioners support the KEEP ideology as well. Moll and Diaz (1987) state that

The resulting classroom social organization and interactions are at odds with the student's ZPD (i.e., watering down of curriculum). Given the importance of ZPD in relation to the development of a sociocultural approach to instruction (Moll, 1990; Moll & Diaz, 1987), assessment strategies such as DA aimed at identifying appropriate MLE (both type and amount) are essential for linking assessment and instruction as an ongoing circular curricular process.

Cultural Diversity and DA

Process-oriented assessment approaches, such as DA, are recommended because they may be more fair and relevant culturally than traditional product-oriented approaches (Benner, 1992; Samuda et al., 1989). There are universal characteristics of mediated learning experiences that are not related to the context in which DA is conducted or the language used; these characteristics include (a) intentionality of the mediator toward interactions with the mediatee, (b) transcendence or mediation of meaning (i.e., the mediator supports learner acquisition of problem solving behaviors and their subsequent use in situations very different from the one in which the initial mediation occurred), and (c) mediator regulation of the behavior of the mediatee, providing specific feedback designed to generate feelings of competence, and the tendency to share feelings. The universal elements of MLE direct the mediator to attend to abilities rather han the disabilities of the learner (Jensen, Feuerstein, Rand, Kaniel, & Tzuriel, 1988; Lidz, 1987). DA represents a flexible assessment approach; it is process rather than product oriented, and the elements can be observed within social transmission interactions (i.e., the manner in which social customs, values, are passed on to the next generations) across cultures. Thus, DA provides a potential solution to the traditional problems of cultural insensitivity inherent in normed tests and may provide a source of alternative assessment techniques which have been suggested by several authors (Benner, 1992; Duran, 1989; Jensen et al., 1988).

Review of Literature on Dynamic Assessment with Young American Indian/Alaska Native Children and Families

Literature selections for this review were empirical (defined as articles that presented data-based studies, as opposed to opinion or position papers) and, were published between 1986 and 1995. This time span was chosen in light of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1986, PL 99-457, which extended the mandate to provide services to 3 to 5-year-olds (Part B), with the option of serving birth through 2 (Part H). Additional criteria included literature which addressed American Indian/Alaska Native children, birth to age 8 (the population of interest for this review was American Indian/Alaska Native children that were within the early childhood age range), and specifically employed and referred to the term dynamic assessment. The review included a computer search of the PsychLit, Social Science Index, and Eric databases; an ancestral search of major journals in the fields of early childhood (Journal of Early Intervention, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, and Infant Behavior and Development) and American Indian/Alaska Native Education (Journal of American Indian Education, Journal of Navajo Education, and American Indian Quarterly); and personal communication with C. S. Lidz (October, 1993), a major author conducting research in the area of dynamic assessment.

There were no empirical studies identified between 1986 and 1995 that addressed DA and young American Indian/Alaska Native children and families. Research studies pertaining to American Indian/Alaska Native early childhood education are limited. However, seven studies were found that dealt with the use of DA with early childhood populations, and most studies included children from culturally diverse backgrounds. The studies contained information that may be of relevance in determining whether future research in the area of DA and young American Indian/Alaska Native children is warranted. A review of studies incorporates the following themes: static-dynamic comparison, infant studies that investigate MLE and infant-caregiver interactions, and dynamic assessment as a tool for contrasting intervention strategies. A summary of demographic information, inclusive of all seven studies, is contained in Table 1. Table I is of interest here, but will be primarily referred to in the subsequent discussion section of this review.

Static-dynamic Comparison

Static (standardized norm-referenced tests) and dynamic measures of learning in young children (as previously described in this text) were investigated in four studies: Burns, Vye, Bransford, Delclos, & Ogan (1987); Pena, Quinn, & Iglesias (1992); Speece, Cooper, & Kibler (1990); and Tzuriel & Caspi (1992). Subjects consisted of handicapped kindergartners, "at risk" first graders, preschool children with and without language disorders, and preschool deaf and hearing children, respectively. Two of the four studies utilized control groups (Speece et al., 1990; Tzuriel & Caspi, 1992), and one conducted a follow-up (Pena et al., 1992). Static instruments were normed and standardized. Dynamic procedures employed techniques described previously in this review. See Table 2 for a summary of assessment instruments.

The results of the studies indicate that DA adds information beyond that provided by static measures. The use of mediation adds more information than graduated prompts (Burns et al., 1987), and the use of DA can be helpful in predicting an individual's ability to benefit from this alternative assessment approach (Speece et al., 1990). In addition, DA posttests predicted group membership for nondisabled children and children with possible language disorders, whereas static measures did not (Pena et al., 1992). The use of DA also differentiated deaf and hearing children with regard to learning between pretest and posttest teaching phases; factor analysis indicated the presence of qualitative differences in learning processes between the two groups (Tzuriel & Caspi, 1992). Dynamic assessment did not add significantly to the equation for predicting academic achievement; verbal intelligence was more predictive (Speece et al., 1990). The results indicate that the strength of DA may be in facilitating program planning, as opposed to predicting future academic achievement.

Infant Studies

Two studies, Klein (1988) and Klein, Wieder, and Greenspan (1987), shared a similar theoretical construct, observation methodology, and data collection procedures to investigate infant-caregiver interactions. The shared theoretical construct was MLE. The observation methodology and data collection procedures of both studies included operational definitions of the five elements of MLE (intentionality and reciprocity, mediation of meaning, transcendence, mediated feelings of competence, and mediated regulation of behavior). The behaviors were scored as MLE only when there was evidence that the child was attending to the caregiver. Interactions were recorded utilizing frequency counts.

The studies differed from each other in regard to nationality, age, socioeconomic status (SES), and the activities observed. Klein et al. (1987) studied U.S. low-SES infants and children, during 10-minute observations of free play at the clinic; the Klein (1988) study featured Israeli, middle-class infants, during 2-1/2 hour observations in the home during feeding, bathing, and play. The results of both studies indicated (a) the stability of the MLE scores across time and activities, (b) the value of molar rather than molecular criteria for observation based on the MLE theory, (c) the predictive ability of MLE and direct clinical usefulness, and (d) the need for the development of intervention programs that focus on modifying mediation styles in the adults with possible positive changes resulting in the quality of parent-child interactions. The authors also emphasized the importance of utilizing an assessment tool that examines discrete components of adult-child interactions in a content-free and culture-independent manner.

DA and Intervention Strategies

Mediation and instruction intervention strategies were contrasted using DA with preschool special needs children by Missiuna and Samuels (1989). Subjects were identified by the hospital therapy staff as demonstrating specific learning and/or behavioral difficulties. The dynamic assessment instrument used was the Children's Analogical Thinking Modifiability (CATM) (Tzuriel & Klein, 1987). The major difference between the interventions employed were the two teaching approaches. Mediation focused on teaching general learning strategies that were individualized and directly contingent upon the behavior and performance of the child on analogical problems. In addition, a justification procedure (i.e., the process of arriving at a correct answer was reviewed) was included. The instruction intervention taught each child task-specific strategies in a standardized manner. Reinforcement was given for correct answers. The overall results, using a two-method scoring procedure to measure the pre-post performance change (in method 1, credit was given for a correct answer; in method 2, partial credit was given depending upon prompt level needed), indicated no significant difference between the two groups on pretest methods. A significant difference was found between the groups for posttest performance using both scoring methods. The mediation intervention was more effective than the instruction intervention in producing change in analogical problem solving ability.

Although the studies reviewed did not directly address young American Indian/Alaska Native children, salient aspects of the studies can be identified that suggest the advantages of using DA. Factors relevant for American Indian/Alaska Native children include (a) demographic similarities between populations in the studies and American Indian/Alaska Natives, (b) flexibility in the utility of DA, and (c) the potential of DA to differentiate and provide critical information above and beyond static measures, thereby aiding in the development and evaluation of instructional methods used by early childhood educators and support service providers. Each of these factors is addressed more fully below.

Demographic Similarities

There were three areas relevant to examining the similarities between young American Indian/Alaska Native children and the populations within the studies: ethnic origin, socioeconomic status (SES), and handicapping condition or status category (see Table 1). Six of the seven studies (Burns et al., 1987; Klein et al., 1987; Klein, 1988; Missiuna & Samuels, 1989; Pena et al., 1992; Speece et al., 1990; Tzuriel & Caspi, 1992) included, in part or in whole, ethnic populations for whom enculturation and language, family systems, and childrearing practices may be very diverse (Harry, 1992), clearly relevant to American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Two of the studies (Klein et al., 1987; Pena et al., 1992) focused on families of low SES, the condition of many American Indian/Alaska Native families. Finally, 5 of the 7 studies addressed handicapping conditions or status categories that are prevalent across American Indian/Alaska Native populations, including learning disabilities (the most frequent diagnosis for American Indian/Alaska Native children), language disorders (the second most frequent diagnosis for American Indian children), and finally, hearing impaired and at risk children. The researchers indicated positive outcomes when using DA with a variety of populations. This finding is of particular importance given the degree of heterogeneity (i.e., numerous microcultures) across Indian nations.

Flexibility of DA

The utility of DA for assessing American Indian/Alaska Native children lies in the flexibility of the model. DA is a multidimensional assessment procedure that can be used across disciplines (e.g., educators, speech and language pathologists), settings (e.g., school, home, community), and diverse populations (e.g., the Seneca Nation, the Navajo Nation, the Nez Perce Nation). Flexibility is especially important to educators who are faced with providing appropriate assessment practices for populations that traditionally have been excluded from standardized testing norms.

DA Alternative Potential

The studies in which DA and static assessment were contrasted (Burns et al., 1987; Pena et al., 1992; Speece et al., 1990; Tzuriel & Caspi, 1992) indicated the strength of DA posttests in differentiating group membership among nondisabled and disabled children (i.e., individuals with possible language disorders, children who are deaf), while static measures failed to differentiate these groups. Differentiation of handicapped from non-handicapped American Indian/Alaska Native children has been problematic with standardized testing, resulting in the continued misrepresentation of American Indian/Alaska Native children in special education and gifted and talented programs. The use of DA with American Indian/Alaska Native children may serve to reverse the current trend toward misrepresentation. Educators have also struggled with appropriate program development and evaluation procedures for young American Indian/Alaska Native children and their families. Researchers have identified program planning and evaluation as being other areas of strength in the DA model.

American Indian/Alaska Native children have languages, value sets, customs, spiritual convictions, and childrearing patterns that differ from the majority of society; they need assessment materials and procedures that reflect their rich heritage (Benner, 1992; Harry, 1992; Tafoya, 1989). DA perhaps provides the flexibility to meet the diversity of assessment needs and issues that are prevalent across American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Appropriate assessment of young American Indian/Alaska Native children and their families becomes the foundation on which to build early intervention programs that incorporate the American Indian/Alaska Native heritage, support individual identity and learning styles (cooperative versus competitive), and educate the whole child.

There is a growing body of empirical research that addresses the validity, utility, and implications of using dynamic assessment in early intervention. In practice, the educational assessment of young exceptional children and their families is a complicated and controversial subject; this is especially true for American Indian/Alaska Native families. Alternative methods for assessing learning potential (abilities versus limitations), developing functional IFSPs and assessing program effectiveness have been evolving, with emphasis on utility for culturally diverse populations (Benner, 1992). DA appears to have potential as an alternative practice to traditional testing for young American Indian/Alaska Native children and their families.

The utility of DA for linking culturally relevant assessment and instruction in early childhood American Indian/Alaska Native education is dependent in part upon educational reform efforts. DA and other Vygotskian influenced educational theories, research, and practices have received little serious attention in the United States until recently. Educational reform efforts are focusing on the importance of fundamental, natural methods of assessment and teaching. A strengths-oriented sociocultural approach to education seems indeed timely (Moll, 1992). This is especially so, in light of the long history of American education assimilation agendas directed toward American Indian/Alaska Native populations being subsumed by the U. S. macroculture (Charleston, 1994). This is true for other ethnic microcultures as well. A sociocultural approach would call for major systemic change in educational policy at all levels (i.e., federal, state, district, community, school). For example, labeling children as "at-risk learning disabled," "mentally-retarded" would cease to be of functional use; rather, children would participate inclusively and collaboratively in the learning process, guided by the use of mediated learning experiences matched to their "zones of proximal development." The goal of education would be to facilitate and maximize children's learning potential within a variety of sociocultural contexts. In addition, changes in school/classroom structure and patterns of relationships may be facilitated (i.e., relationships between the teachers and learners, teachers and families, teachers and teachers, and teachers and administrators, administrators and community leaders, etc.) (Tharp, 1991). The KEEP and other similar efforts are promising; yet elders, grandparents, parents, educators, and researchers must be ever vigilant in directing educational reform to address the diverse educational needs of American Indian/Alaska Native populations.

The limited amount of assessment research conducted in Indian education, with even less regarding special education issues, has great implications for researchers (Tippeconnic, 1988). Research on Indian Education must be a priority at national, state, and local levels, with an emphasis on treatment and social validation of assessment methods and materials. In light of the crucial role of assessment in education, efforts aimed at researching the effects of current assessment practices verses alternative approaches, are indeed, justified. As part of a sociocultural approach to instruction, DA merits research attention across Indian education, especially with young children and families with special needs. DA assessment may be a valid and useful assessment tool which could serve to maximize instruction across age groups as well. Clearly, much work is to be done in developing early childhood education programs that meet the community and family needs of American Indian/Alaska Native populations.

Systemic change within schools serving American Indian/Alaska Native populations is critical to ensure enculturation rather than assimilation across Nations. This is imminently crucial for the maintenance of sovereignty and self-determination for generations yet to come. The heterogeneity among Nations need not be an obstacle in quality service provision. Early intervention practices may set the tone for systemic change in service delivery, beginning with appropriate assessment that is linked to effective sociocultural instruction leading to a cycle of success for the children of America's diverse indigenous peoples.

Susan Rae Banks received her master's from Gonzaga University in 1992. She is currently a third year PhD candidate of the American Indian Special Education Leadership and Teacher Training Fellowship at The Pennsylvania State University. She has six and a half years teaching experience. Her research interests are in early childhood special education with emphasis on quality service delivery for American Indian children and families.

John T. Neisworth, PhD, is Professor of Special Education and coordinator of the Early Intervention program at The Pennsylvania State University. He is an author or co-author of 12 texts and numerous research studies in early childhood, special education, and applied behavior analysis. Formerly the director of Higher Competencies Preschool Curriculum (HICOMP), a Handicapped Children's Early Education Program (HCEEP)-funded model integrated preschool project, and co-devloper of the HICOMP Preschool Curriculum.