Hello Guest

Log In

Reset Password

Resset Password

Personal Report

L.P.A.D. Learning Potential Assessment Device
Method for the Assessment of Learning Potential
This assessment device is a structured learning process which incorporates teaching
mediation by the examiner that is adapted to the student’s needs. The analysis of
the interaction allows us to identify the strong and weak aspects of the student’s
cognitive functioning in all three stages of thinking: input, elaboration, and output,
as well as to determine effective remedial methods.

The Group L.P.A.D. Assessment Battery includes the following tests:

Raven test: The first series of the test (A, B) assesses the student’s learning
potential in the perceptual field, Gestalt Completion, the use of concepts, and
solving analogical problems. The test enables us to identify the student’s difficulties
in problem definition, use of concepts in order to elaborate information, and ability
to deal with spatial reference systems, while managing several sources of
information simultaneously. In the advanced series (C, D, E), which include complex
formal logical problems that require high-level abstract thinking ability, the test
assesses the student’s ability to analyze problems, establish relationships, and reveal
principles at the basis of a given task, as well as his ability to deal with multiple
sources of information at once.

Variations B8-B12 Test: This test is based on the B8-B12 items in the Raven test. Through this test it is possible to assess the participant’s ability to learn and apply the analog principle

Numerical Progression Test: This test assesses the student’s ability to conceptualize
abstractly in a numerical modality. It examines his ability to acquire and develop
strategies to formulate rules and make generalizations, to create inference
processes, to hypothesize, to seek connections between objects, to identify and use
codes, to project relationships between events, and to use hypothetical thinking and
mathematical operations.
The Organizer: In this test, written problems are administered. Each problem
consists of data, including names of objects and grid numbers. Based on the data,
the student is required to fit each object into the correct grid. The test requires
logical and systematic reasoning.
The Organizer test assesses the student’s ability to use specific information for the
purpose of collecting new information (direct and indirect), to look for strategies to
hypothesize, to read and understand instructions, and to acquire and use strategies
to analyze complex verbal data.


Master’s Profile(Post)

D profile – (I+ E- O-)

This student seems to be “sucked into” the data that is presented to him in the input phase. He acts as if the data is all that is needed to fully understand the task.  In other words, he relates only to the output, and ignores the elaboration and output phases. While elaboration and output are performed, they are done so automatically rather than in a consciously controlled way. Consequently, these processes are superficial and insufficient to accomplish complex tasks. The student thus expresses himself and mostly acts in a manner that is consistent with the data he is shown. He will not explore the meaning and roots of the data, and he will not consider various action plans in response to this data. He tends to simply act on the strength of the data as if they counted for everything.

It is also possible that elaboration and output do not function actively regardless of the nature of the data presented to the student. This is probably indicative of a more basic weakness in the elaboration and output phases.

Learning style:

In the classroom, the student listens to the teacher but loses interest and focus when the discussion turns to processing the material. The student’s answers, if offered at all, will be a type of reconstruction of the data presented to him and internalized at the input phase. He is unlikely to draw conclusions or produce new knowledge based on what he heard or read. Furthermore, he has difficulty easily, clearly, and even correctly expressing the knowledge that he acquired using his good data collection processes.

Due to the weakness of this student’s elaboration and output processes, we may mistakenly think that this student does not benefit at all from being in the classroom. This is incorrect: the teachers should check for knowledge in a more sensitive manner (the output phase).

Tests and worksheets: The student’s tests and worksheets focus on reproducing information. If the questions are unclear or complex, he will have trouble understanding them due to his weak elaboration processes.

Social behavior: His social behavior may be abnormal. He needs to be given very clear rules of behavior– not hints – because of his weak processing. Even when he understands the rules presented in a modified manner, he may make partial and even distorted use of them because of his weak output processes.

Games: He prefers games that do not require strong elaboration processes or precise output processes. Accordingly, prefers sports games (if he is physically able to play these games).

His social status may be strong precisely because of the weakness of his elaboration and output processes. It may be impulsive and sharp at the output phase. As someone who responds quickly, he may take center-phase; alternatively, he may be pushed into a social corner and perceived as socially marginal.

Optimal teaching style:

  1. Mediation for a Feeling of Competence is critical to prompt this student to make the significant effort required from him to improve his elaboration and output capabilities. Because his capabilities are hidden, the feedback he receives from his environment is usually negative, so the first and necessary step is to bring him to a real recognition of his abilities.

The style of teaching should be based on the data collected by the student. This data should become a springboard from which the elaboration takes off. In other words, the teacher should establish the elaboration process from the data in a clear and simple manner, rather than in an abstract way. For example, the teacher might say, “Let’s read it again … Let’s take a look at the exercise…” Questions to be avoided include: “What do you think about? How was the conclusion reached?” Thus, input should not be ignored when we begin the data analysis. Moreover, the work should move from the elaboration process to the output process. 

© All rights reserved to Feuerestein institute.
הקמת אתרי וורדפרס, עיצוב ממשקי משתמש
Skip to content