The case for early assessment using the IDS-2 

By definition, specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) can only be securely diagnosed once there is compelling evidence of a difficulty with learning. This means that there can often be a delay between early struggles and the administration of a formal assessment, until enough evidence of a difficulty has accumulated and hopes that the child will just ‘catch up’ have been abandoned. SpLDs are present from birth however, and there are many factors (both biological and environmental) that can influence the developmental trajectory. 

Early assessment can have a crucial role in identifying signs that a child might be at risk of a particular SpLD but, perhaps even more importantly, it can provide an opportunity to protect against those risks and improve long-term outcomes. A comprehensive, early profile of strengths and needs can be a springboard for providing appropriate support and influencing the course of development. In the context of dyslexia, the authors of the recent paper on a Delphi Study that led to a new definition of dyslexia stated that “in young children assessment of need should be prioritised over diagnosis” (Holden et al, 2025).

In younger children, there is more neuroplasticity than in the more mature brain. The networks of neurons in their brains are still forming and can reorganise and form new connections more easily. The structural and functional brain effects have been demonstrated by neuroscientists (e.g. Kolb & Gibb, 2011) but in addition, there are many studies that have shown how effective early intervention can be. For example, early oral language and phonemic awareness training have been shown to reduce the likelihood of later literacy problems (Snowling & Hulme, 2012). Early, research-based mathematical interventions can bring long-term success in mathematics, and also enhance thinking and learning across the curriculum (Clements & Sarama, 2011). D’Hondt et al (2013) demonstrated the wide range of benefits of a structured motor skill intervention for young children, both short-term and long term. 

A child who makes progress in areas they have found challenging is not only likely to have better outcomes in that developmental domain, but is less likely to become frustrated, lose confidence and suffer from low self-esteem. There may also be a reduced risk of the behavioural challenges which can arise from struggles throughout development, compounding their impact. 

Even when early support does not fully close the gap between a child and their peers, there is value in understanding the child’s strengths and needs more fully and establishing a baseline from which progress can be monitored. It can also be useful to know that difficulties are not simply due to lack of opportunity or support, and this can result in more timely access to specialist support pathways or diagnostic assessment if appropriate.

The UK version of the Intelligence and Development Scales – 2^nd edition (IDS-2) is a comprehensive test battery that can create full developmental profiles of individuals from ages 5-21. From the perspective of early development, it has much to offer. It can be used in a flexible way that is ideally suited to a ‘hypothesis-testing’ approach to assessment, as recommended by Holden et al (2025) in the context of dyslexia. Using such an approach, working hypotheses about why a child is struggling are systematically tested. An assessor will integrate and interpret information from many sources, weighing up the evidence for different possible explanations and refining the working hypotheses as needed. This may be after monitoring response to recommended intervention, since assessment is viewed as part of a process rather than an event that must result in an immediate diagnostic outcome. The IDS-2, with its ‘whole child’ perspective can contribute to this process by providing valuable data about strengths and weaknesses across six different domains (Intelligence, Executive Functions, Psychomotor skills, Social-emotional skills, Scholastic skills and Motivation and Attitude).

The IDS-2 is more than the sum of its parts, however. It is not only a tool that can be used to assess abilities in any or all of the areas mentioned above, but it is based on a constructivist view of development that recognises these different domains as being interrelated. From an intervention perspective then, that would lead to an approach that rather than focusing on remediating narrow areas of ‘deficit’, considers any weaknesses in a broader context and harnesses strengths that can be used to bring about change. 

For example, for a young child who has difficulties with language, the use of the IDS-2 is not restricted to assessing and comparing their understanding of language (Receptive language subtest) and their ability to use language (Expressive language subtest), but can do so much more. For example, it can be used to…

• phonological processing skills that underpin speech and language (Phonological awareness subtest), as well as being the springboard for literacy
• aspects of memory which are highly relevant to language development and use (Auditory short-term memory subtest, Story recall subtest)
• attention, which is an essential prerequisite to understanding spoken language (Executive Functions subtests)

• the ability to use language for deductive reasoning (Verbal reasoning subtests) or to explain mathematical thinking (Logical mathematical reasoning subtest)
• knowledge of vocabulary relating to emotions, and ability to use language to regulate emotions and communicate effectively in a social context (Social and emotional skills subtest)

The potential for examining interrelationships between different domains in this way means the IDS-2 can lead to a meaningful understanding of the nature and impact of particular areas of vulnerability in a child, informing intervention in a way that can really make a difference. 

Furthermore, even at the age of 5, an assessment using the IDS-2 is likely to be an enjoyable experience! It consists of a range of colourful administration booklets and engaging materials, including washers, wooden cubes, a ball, rope, doll and plastic shapes – all neatly packed in a white wheely suitcase.

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood mathematics intervention. Science, 333(6045), 968–970

D'Hondt, E., Deforche, B., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Lenoir, M. (2013). Effects of a 10-month, after-school fundamental motor skill intervention on motor skill and physical fitness of 6- to 12-year-old children: a cluster randomized controlled study. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 16(3), 209-21

Holden, C., Kirby, P., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A. & Carroll, J. M. (2025) ‘Towards a Consensus for Dyslexia Practice: Findings of a Delphi Study on Assessment and Identification’, Dyslexia, 31(1), e1800. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1800

Kolb, B. and Gibb, R., 2011. Brain plasticity and behaviour in the developing brain. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(4), pp.265–276.

Sattler, J.M., 2018.Foundations of behavioral, social, and clinical assessment of children. 7th ed. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher.

Snowling, M.J. and Hulme, C., 2012. Interventions for children's language and literacy difficulties. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(1), pp.27–34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00081.x