Inattention and Written Expression Difficulties in ......common and impairing academic problems for all school-aged children (Hooper et al., 1993; Hooper et al., 2002; Mayes & Calhoun,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Inattention and Written Expression Difficulties in Children with Normal and Poor Word-Reading Skills
by
Erika Zapparoli
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Human Development and Applied Psychology University of Toronto
Inattention and Written Expression Difficulties in Children with
Normal and Poor Word-Reading Skills
Erika Zapparoli
Masters of Arts
Human Development and Applied Psychology University of Toronto
2009
ABSTRACT
This study examined written expression skills in children with attention problems with
and without word reading difficulties. The sample consisted of 28 children with attention
problems (AP) only, 18 children with coexisting attention and reading problems (ARP), and 34
children without attention or word reading difficulties (TYP). Curriculum-based measurement
(CBM) indices of accuracy and fluency, plus teacher ratings of handwriting, spelling, and
overall writing skills were used to assess children’s written expression skills. The analyses
indicated that the AP and ARP groups received significantly lower scores on all measures of
written expression than the TYP group. The ARP group scored significantly lower than the AP
group on the teacher ratings of writing and spelling. These findings suggest that inattention is
significantly related to written expression difficulties independent of word-reading skills.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii List of Tables vi List of Figures vii List of Appendices viii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Overview of the Present Study 1.2 Literature Review
1.2.1 Academic and Cognitive Weaknesses Associated with ADHD 1.2.1.1 General Academic Underachievement and Learning Difficulties
1.2.1.2 Inattention and Reading Difficulties
1.2.1.3 ADHD and Writing Difficulties
1.2.1.4 Summary
1.2.2 Children’s Writing Development
1.2.2.1 Theoretical Framework for Writing Development
1.2.2.2 The Role of EF and WM in Writing Acquisition
1.2.2.3 The Role of Transcription in Writing Acquisition
1.2.2.4 The Role of Word-Reading Skills in Writing Acquisition
1.2.2.5 Summary
1.2.3 Assessment of Written Expression Skills
1.2.3.1 Issues and Considerations in Writing Assessment
1.2.3.2 Key Assessment Components According to Simple View
1.2.3.3 Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) of Written Expression
1.2.4. Summary of Literature Review and Rationale for Present Study
iv
1.3 Objectives and Hypotheses
Chapter 2: Method 32
2.1 Participants
2.2 Procedure
2.3 Measures
2.4 Statistical Analyses
Chapter 3: Results 42
3.1 Group Differences in Written Expression Outcomes
3.2 Partial Correlations between Inattention vs. Hyperactivity-Impulsivity and Writing
Outcomes
3.3 Supplementary Analyses
Chapter 4: Discussion 49
4.1 Summary and Discussion of Results
4.1.1 Transcription Level Outcomes
4.1.2 Text Generation Level Outcomes
4.1.3 Language Arts Competence
4.1.4 General Summary and Discussion
4.2 Implications for Research, Theory, and Practice
4.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research
4.4 Conclusion
References 68
Tables 80
Appendices 84
Figure Captions and Figures 92
v
List of Tables Table 1. Sample Characteristics by Subgroup Table 2. Group Differences on the CBM Assessments of Written Expression Table 3. Group Differences on the Teacher Ratings of Written Expression and Language Arts Skills Table 4. Zero-order and Partial Correlations between Inattention and Hyperactivity with Writing Variables
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram for the Simple View of Writing Figure 4. Hypothetical Model of the Relationships between Inattention and Written Expression
vii
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Scoring Procedures for CBM Writing Probe with Scored Examples Appendix B. Table of Correlations between Direct Measures of Writing and Teacher Ratings of
Writing Appendix C. Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Direct Measures of Writing by
Gender and Group Appendix D. Table of Means and Standard Deviations for Teacher Ratings of Writing by
Gender and Group Appendix E. Copyright Permission from Guilford Press for use of adapted schematic diagram
of Simple View of Writing (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003)
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
2
1.1 Background and Overview of the Present Study
Children with a clinical diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are
at high risk for academic impairment, special education, grade repetition, and high school
2008; Reid & Lienemann, 2006, Re et al., 2008). The effectiveness of self regulated strategy
development (SRSD) (Graham & Harris, 2000) among students with ADHD has been
demonstrated in small-scale intervention studies with moderate success (De LaPaz, 2001;
Lienemann & Reid, 2008; Reid & Lienemann, 2006). The efficacy of SRSD for improving
written expression of students with LD is widely documented (Graham & Harris, 2003; Graham
et al., 2005). Attention training paired with writing instruction has been reported to improve the
composition skills of children with dyslexia (Chenault et al., 2006). Research is needed to
identify instructional strategies that support the written expression development of children with
attention problems.
Finally, this study also has practical implications for assessment in both research and
education. The findings of the present study provide further evidence that CBM assessment of
written language is a valid measure of students' written expression performance (e.g.,
Weissenburger & Espin, 2005). Furthermore, the present findings also provide more evidence
for the validity of CBM writing measures to detect differences in writing proficiency among at
risk groups of children (e.g. Parker et al., 1991a). Also, teachers may be able to more easily
64
interpret and make use of the present findings because the present study utilized CBM measures
of writing that can be easily administered and interpreted by teachers. Thus an advantage of the
present study is that it utilized measures with ecological validity and obvious educational utility.
4.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Findings of the present study must be considered in light of the following limitations.
The first limitation of the study is related to the handwriting assessment. The direct measure of
handwriting was assessed solely by analyzing the visual presentation of the text in the writing
samples. Unfortunately, it was not possible to directly assess handwriting and its various
dimensions of independent of the composing process. Independent, objective measures of
handwriting subskills, such as orthographic coding and copy fluency, would have been useful to
assess in order to potentially isolate, understand, or rule-out specific skill deficits underlying
handwriting difficulties and attention problems. For example, difficulties with handwriting may
arise from a variety of different underlying deficits including difficulty coordinating the overall
writing process due to limited cognitive resources, poor fine motor control, poor orthographic
coding, poor executive control or a combination of such deficits (Feder & Majnemer, 2007).
Along a similar vein, future studies should distinguish between phonological spelling errors and
graphemic buffer errors to determine whether the transcription difficulties of children with
attention problems are related to linguistic errors, attention problems or both (Adi Japha et al.,
2007; Re et al., 2007).
A second limitation of this study was that due to insufficient sample size across groups
(i.e., n = 5 for Reading Problems only group) and gender (i.e., n = 4 for girls vs. n = 13 for boys
for ARP) it was not possible to: (a) assess the interaction between group and gender and (b)
assess the characteristics of the reading problem only group (RP) relative to the attention
problem groups (i.e., AP and ARP). A recent study examined gender differences and EF in
65
writing among children with dyslexia and reported that boys were significantly more impaired
than girls with respect to both EF (i.e., sustained attention/switching tasks) and writing
(Berninger et al., 2008b). Further research is needed to examine gender differences in written
expression within samples of children with attention deficits or ADHD.
An additional limitation of this study was that only a single writing sample was collected
from each child, and the writing samples were quite short (about 3 to 5 sentences on average).
The brevity of the writing samples provided limited material to assess, and thus may have
reduced the sensitivity of the measures to subtle group differences, for example between the AP
and ARP groups. Furthermore, the use of more sophisticated writing measures (e.g., sentences,
content, cohesion, overall writing quality, etc.) was impractical given length of the samples
collected. It should be noted however, that CBM measures of writing have been found to
effectively capture students academic functioning in written expression skills (see review by
McMaster & Espin, 2007). Future research should consider obtaining multiple and/or longer
writing samples in different genres to provide for a more in-depth assessment of writing ability
in children with attention problems using a range of tasks (e.g., see Schoonen, 2005).
Furthermore, children with clinical levels of inattention (i.e., ADHD) often exhibit
weaknesses in oral language skills related to EF deficits and difficulties producing coherent oral
narratives (Flory et al., 2006; Purvis & Tannock, 1997; Tannock et al., 1993). Hence, it would be
advisable to investigate EF-related language factors such as planning, goals, organization,
cohesion, problem solving, and idea generation in writing among older students with attention
problems.
Finally, it bears consideration that the students with attention problems were selected for
the larger intervention study because they exhibited attention and academic problems; however,
they did not have to exhibit writing difficulties. Also, for the present study, the relations between
66
reading and attention and writing within this sample were of particular interest, not just whether
they had deficits. Furthermore, the subjective teacher ratings of attention (SWAN scale) used to
differentiate the groups in the present study could have been confounded by students’ academic
performance (or vice versa), thereby contributing to the strong relationship between attention
scores and ratings of writing skills and language arts competence. However, the validity of these
measures in the present study was supported because teacher ratings of inattention correlated
significantly with parent ratings of inattention, and teacher ratings of writing skills were
consistent with objective CBM writing scores. Future studies should consider inclusion of
objective measures of attention (e.g., neuro-cognitive measures of WM, EF, and processing
speed). Such measures would be useful to validate the teacher attention scores as well as to
potentially isolate and explain the underlying mechanism through which inattentive behaviour is
related to poor writing outcomes.
4.4 Conclusion
The present study illustrates that children with mild to severe attention problems
exhibited weaknesses in all areas measured including handwriting quality, spelling,
compositional fluency, accuracy, and general written expression across both direct measures and
teacher ratings of writing. These weaknesses were evident even among those children with
attention problems who did not have word-level reading impairments. This finding suggests that
attention may be important in early written expression and it confirms the first hypothesis. The
second hypothesis, that coexisting attention and reading problems would be associated with
significantly greater impairment in written expression than attention problems alone, was only
partially confirmed as there were no significant differences between the attention groups (AP
and ARP groups) on the objective CBM measures of writing. However, children with coexisting
attention and reading problems did exhibit significantly lower teacher ratings of spelling and
67
written expression skills as well as overall language arts competence compared to those children
in the AP group.
Finally, the third hypothesis that inattentive behaviour would be directly related to all
writing outcomes independent of hyperactivity-impulsivity was confirmed by for all but one
outcome measure. After controlling for age and hyperactivity-impulsivity, inattention was still
directly related all measures of writing except for direct measures of handwriting quality.
Furthermore, handwriting quality was the only measure that continued to be significantly related
to hyperactivity-impulsivity after controlling for age and inattention.
The results of the present study extend prior research concerning written expression
skills of children with ADHD symptoms (Elbert, 1993; Mayes et al., 2000; Mayes & Calhoun,
2007a; Re et al., 2007; 2008) by demonstrating an association between inattention and written
expression difficulties in a non-clinical English-speaking sample. It is hoped that the findings
from this study may help to understand and prevent written expression difficulties in students
with and without attention problems and encourage further exploration of this area.
68
References
Abbott, R., & Berninger, VB. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among
developmental skills and writing skills in primary and intermediate grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 478-508.
Adi-Japha, E., Landau, Y.E., Frenkel, L., Teicher, M., & Shalev, R.S. (2007). ADHD and dysgraphia: Underlying mechanisms. Cortex, 43, 700-709.
Alloway, T.P, Gathercole, S.E, Adams, A., Willis,C., Eaglen, R, Lamont, E. (2005).Working memory and phonological awareness as predictors of progress towards early learning goals at school entry. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 417–426
Altemeier, L.E., Abbott, R. D. & Berninger, V.W. (2007). Executive functions for reading and writing in typical literacy development and dyslexia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30, 588- 606
Altemeier, L.E., Jones, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Executive functions in becoming writing readers and reading writers: Note taking and report writing in third and fifth graders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 161-174.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Barkley, R.A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65-94.
Barkley, R., DuPaul, G., & McMurray, M. (1990). Comprehensive evaluation of attention deficit disorder with and without hyperactivity as defined by research criteria. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 775–789.
Barkley, R.A., Fischer, M., Edelbrock, C.S., & Smallish, L. (1990). The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria, I: An 8-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 546–557.
Berninger, V.W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 99-112.
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Abbott, S.P., Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 39-56.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Jones, J., Wolf, B. J., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S., & Apel, K. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections: Three letter-writing modes and fast mapping in spelling.
69
Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61-92.
Berninger, V.W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In H. L. Swanson, K.R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities, (pp. 345-363). New York: Guilford Press.
Berninger, V.W., Cartwright, A.C., Yates, C.M., Swanson, H.L., & Abbott, R.D. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161-196.
Berninger, V.W,. & Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal and compositional fluency: Implications for assessing writing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 363-382.
Berninger, V.W., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process model of writing across the life span. Education Psychology Review, 8, 193-218.
Berninger, V.W, Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57–79. Berninger, V.W., Yates, C., Lester, K. (1991). Multiple orthographic codes in reading and writing acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 3, 115-149.
Berninger, V.W., Mizokawa, D.T., Bragg, R., Cartwright, A., & Yates, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 10, 259-275.
Berninger V.W., Nielsen, K.H., Abbott R.D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind W. (2008a). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 1–21.
Berninger V.W., Nielsen, K.H., Abbott R.D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind W. (2008b). Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 151 – 172.
Berninger, V.W., Vaughan, K, Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Woodruff, L. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652-666
Berninger, V.W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R.D., Begay, K., Coleman, K.B., Curtin, B. et al. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the Simple View of Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291-304.
Berninger, V.W., Yates, C., Lester, K. (1991). Multiple orthographic codes in reading and writing acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 3, 115-149.
Berninger, V.W, Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257-280.
Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M.C., Doyle, A.E., Seidman, L.J., Wilens, T.E., Ferrero, F., et al. (2004). Impact of executive function deficits and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on
70
academic outcomes in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 757–766.
Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Mick, E., Spencer, T., Wilens, T. E., Silva, J. M., et al. (2006). Young adult outcome of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A controlled 10-year follow-up study. Psychological Medicine, 36, 167–179.
Bourke, L., & Adams, A.M. (2003). The relationship between working memory and early writing assessed at the word, sentence and text level. Educational and Child Psychology, 20, 19-36.
Chase, C. (1986). Essay test scoring: interaction of relevant variables. Journal of Educational Measures 23, 33–41.
Chenault, B., Thomson, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Effects of prior attention training on child dyslexics' response to composition instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 243-260.
Chhabilidas, N., Pennington, B.F., & Willcutt, E. (2001). A comparison of the neuropsychological profiles of the DSM-IV Subtypes of ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 529–540.
Cobb Morocco, C., Dalton, B., Tivnan, T. (1992). The impact of computer-supported writing instruction on fourth-grade students with and without learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8, 87 – 113
Cooper, C. (1997). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 3–31). Urbana IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Copeland, A.P., Wisniewski, N.M (1981). Learning disability and hyperactivity: Deficits in selective attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 88-101.
Currie, J., & Stabile, M. (2006). Child mental health and human capital accumulation: The case of ADHD. Journal of Health Economics, 25, 1094-1118.
Dally, K. (2006). The influence of phonological processing and inattentive behaviour on reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 420-437.
Deno, S. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36, 5-10.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1-16.
Deno, S., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368-371.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement test (Research Report No. 22). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Deno, S. Mirkin, P., & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching
71
Exceptional Children, 16, 99-104.
DeShazo-Barry, T., Lyman, R.D., & Klinger, L.G. (2002). Academic underachievement and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: The negative impact of symptom severity on school performance. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 259–283.
DiPerna, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (1999b). Development and validation of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scale. Journal of Psychoeduational Assessment, 17, 207-225.
DuPaul, G., Volpe, R., Jitendra, A., Lutz, G., Lorah, K., & Gurber, R. (2004). Elementary school students with AD/HD: Predictors of academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 285-301.
Elbert, J. C. (1993). Occurrence and pattern of impaired reading and written language in children with attention deficit disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 26-43.
Feder, KP, & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49, 312–317.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. United Kingdom: Sage
Fletcher, J., Tannock, R., Bishop, D. (2001).Utility of brief teacher rating scales to identify children with educational problems, Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 63-71.
Fliers, E., Rommelse, N., Vermeulen, S.H.H., Altink, M., Buschgens, C.J, Faraone, S.V., & Sergeant, J.A.. (2008). Motor coordination problems in children and adolescents with ADHD rated by parents and teachers: effects of age and gender. Journal of Neural Transmission, 115, 211-220.
Flory, K., Milich, R., Lorch, E., Hayden, A., Strange, C., & Welsh, R. (2006), Online story comprehension among children with ADHD: Which core deficits are involved? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 853-865.
Frick, P.J., Kamphaus, R.W., Lahey, B.B., Loeber, R., Christ, M.G., Hart, E.L., et al. (1991). Academic underachievement and the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 289 – 294.
Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J., & Hamlett, C. (2005) The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.M., Capizzi, A.M., et al. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 29-43.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral Reading Fluency as an Indicator of Reading Competence: A Theoretical, Empirical, and Historical Analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
72
Gansle, KA., Noell, GH., VanDerHeyden, AM., Naquin, GM., Slider, NJ. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: the reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing, School Psychology Review, 31, 477-497.
Gansle, K., Noell, G., Vanderheyden, A., Slider, N., Hoffpauir, L., Whitmarsh, E. et al. (2004). An examination of the criterion validity and sensitivity to brief intervention of alternate curriculum-based measures of writing skill. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 291-300.
Gansle, K.A., VanDerHeyden, A.M., Noell, G.H., Resetar, J.L., & Williams, K.L. (2006). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based and rating-based measures of written expression for elementary school students. School Psychology Review, 35, 435-450.
Gathercole, S., Alloway, T., Kirkwood, H., Elliott, J., Holmes, J., & Hilton, K. (2008). Attentional and executive function behaviours in children with poor working memory. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 214-223.
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C. S., & Adams, A. M. (2006).Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265−281.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781- 791.
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78-98.
Graham, S., Berninger, V.B, Abbott, R.D., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170-182.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3-12.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York: Guilford.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B.( 2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 620-633.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207-241.
Graham, S., Harris, K., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89–114
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
73
Graham, S., Struck, M., Santoro, J., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Dimensions of good and poor handwriting legibility in first and second graders: Motor programs, visual-spatial arrangement, and letter formation parameter setting. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 43.
Hammill, D., Larsen, S., (1983). Test of Written Language (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro ed.
Hart, E. L., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Applegate, B., & Frick, P. J. (1995). Developmental changes in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in boys: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 729-749.
Hayes, J. R. (2005). New Directions in Writing Theory, Chapter 2. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 28-40). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Hinshaw, S.P. (1992). Academic underachievement, attention deficits, and aggression: Comorbidity
and implications for intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 893-903. Hinshaw, S.P. (1994). Attention Deficits and Hyperactivity in Children. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Hooper, S. R., Swartz, C., Montgomery, J., Reed, M. S., Brown, T., Wasileski, T., & Levine, M. D.
(1993). Prevalence of writing problems across three middle school samples. School Psychology Review, 22, 610-22.
functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57-68.
Hosp, M., Hosp, J., Howell, K.W. (2006). The ABC’s of CBM: a practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. Guilford Press.
Houck, C.K., Billingsley, B.S. (1989). Written expression of students with and without learning disabilities: differences across the grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 561-572
Imhof, M. (2004). Effects of color stimulation on handwriting performance of children with ADHD without and with additional learning disabilities. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 13, 191-198.
Jewell, J., & Malecki, C. K. (2005). The utility of CBM written language indices: An investigation of production-dependent, production-independent, and accurate-production scores. School Psychology Review, 34, 27-44.
Jones, D., & Christensen, C. (1999). The relationship between automaticity in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 44–49.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
Kellogg, R.T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
74
Kroese J, Hynd G, Knight D, Heimenz J & Hall J. (2000). Clinical appraisal of spelling ability and its
relationship to phonemic awareness (blending, segmenting, elision, and reversal), phonological memory and reading in reading disabled, ADHD and normal children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 105–131.
Levy, F., Hay, D.A., McStephen, M., Wood, C., & Waldman, I. (1997). Attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder: a category or a continuum? Genetic analysis of a large-scale twin study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 337 – 344.
Lienemann, T.O., Reid, R. (2008). Using SRSD to improve the expository story writing with students with ADHD. Exceptional Children, 74, 471-486.
Loe, I.M., Feldman, H.M. (2007). Academic and educational outcomes of children with ADHD. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 643–654.
Lui, M., Tannock, R. (2007). Working memory and inattentive behaviour in a community sample of children. Behavioral and Brain Functions. 3, 1-11. Retrieved on 10 May 2008 from http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/3/1/12
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Skarvold, J. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing and text production. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-24.
Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379-390.
Marston, D., Deno, S.L. (1981). The reliability of simple direct measures of written expression (Teach. Rep. No. 50.) Minniapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Marston, D., Lowry, L., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. (1981). An analysis of learning trends in simple measures of reading, spelling, and written expression: A longitudinal study. (Research Report No. 49) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Martin, N.C., Piek, J.P., Hay, D. (2006). DCD and ADHD: a genetic study of their shared aetiology. Human Movement Science, 25, 110-24.
Martinussen, R., & Tannock, R. (2006). Working memory impairments in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with and without comorbid language learning disorders. Journal of Clinical and Neuropsychology, 28, 1073-1094.
Mathers, M. (2006). Aspects of language in children with ADHD: Applying functional analyses to explore language use. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 523-533.
Mayes, S.D., & Calhoun, S.L (2006). Frequency of math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 145-157
Mayes, S.D., & Calhoun, S.L. (2007a). Challenging the assumptions about the frequency and coexistence of learning disability types. School Psychology International, 28, 437–448.
75
Mayes, S.D., & Calhoun, S.L. (2007b). Learning, attention, writing and processing speed in typical children and children with ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression, and oppositional defiant disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 13, 469-493.
Mayes S.D., & Calhoun, S.L., & Lane, S.E. (2005). Diagnosing children's writing disabilities: different tests give different results. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 72-78.
McConaughy, S.H., Mattison, R.E., Peterson, R.L. (1994). Behavioral/emotional problems of children with serious emotional disturbances and learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 23, 81-98.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory for writing: Working memory in composition. Education Psychology Review, 8, 299-325.
McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive Factors in the Development of Children's Writing. Ch8, in MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. Eds, Handbook of Writing Research (pp 115-130). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
McCutchen D., Covill A., Hoyne S. H., & Mildes K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 256-266.
McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68-84.
Merrell, C.H, Tymms, P. B. (2001). Inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness: Their impact on academic achievement and progress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 43-56.
Myklebust, H. (1965/1973). Development and disorders of written language (Vol. 1). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Olinghouse, K. (2008). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students, Reading and Writing 21, 3–26.
Olson, C.L. (1976). On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1350-1352.
Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991a). Countable indices of writing quality; their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1-17.
Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991b). Progress monitoring with objective measures of writing performance for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 61-73.
Pennington, B.F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996). Executive functions and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 51–87.
Pickering, S. J., Gathercole, S.E. (2004). Distinctive working memory profiles in children with special educational needs, Educational Psychology, 24, 393-408.
76
Pitcher, T.M., Piek, J. P., Barrett, N.C. (2002). Timing and force control in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Subtype differences and the effect of comorbid developmental coordination disorder. Human Movement Science, 21, 919-945.
Pitcher, T.M., Piek, J. P., Hay, D.A. (2003). Fine and gross motor ability is males with ADHD. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 45, 525-535.
Powell-Smith, K.A. & Shinn, M.R. (2004) Administration and scoring of curriculum-based measures for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, M.N: Edformation.
Purvis, K.L. & Tannock, R. (1997). Language abilities in children with ADHD, reading disabilities and normal controls. Journal of Attention Disorders, 25, 133-144.
Rabiner, D.L., & Coie, J.D. (2000). Early attention problems and children's reading achievement: a longitudinal investigation. The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 859-867.
Rabiner, D.L., Malone, P.S., & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2004). The impact of tutoring on early reading achievement for children with and without attention problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 273–284.
Rabiner, D. L., & Murray, D.W. (2002). Predictors of below grade level achievement among first grade students: The impact of attention problems. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University.
Racine B.M., Majnemer, A., Shevell, M., & Snider, L. (2008). Handwriting performance in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Child Neurology, 23, 399-406.
Rapport, M.D., Scanlan, S.W., & Denney, C.B. (1999). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and scholastic achievement: A model of dual developmental pathways. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1169–1183.
Re, A.M., Pedron, M., & Cornoldi, C. (2007). Expressive writing difficulties in children described as exhibiting ADHD symptoms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 244-255.
Re, A.M., Caeron, M., & Cornoldi, C. (2008). Improving expressive writing skills of children rated for ADHD symptoms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 535-544.
Reid, R., Ortiz-Lienemann, T. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for written expression with students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 73, 53-68.
Resta, S., & Eliot, J. (1994) Written expression in boys with attention deficit disorder, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1131-1138.
Richards GP, Samuels SJ, Turnure JE, Ysseldyke JE. (1990). Sustained and selective attention in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 129–136.
Ritchey, K. (2008). The building blocks of writing: Learning to write letters and spell words. Reading and Writing, 21, 27–47.
Rodriguez, A., Järvelin, M., Obel, C., Taanila, A., Miettunen, J., Moilanen, I., et al. (2007). Do
77
inattention and hyperactivity symptoms equal scholastic impairment? BMC Public Health, 7, 327-336.
Roid, G. H. (1994) Patterns of writing skills derived from cluster analysis of direct-writing assessments, Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 159- 170.
Rosenblum, S., Weiss, P.L., & Parush, S. (2003). Product and process evaluation of handwriting difficulties. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 41-81.
Ross, Peter A., Poidevant, John M. & Miner, Claire Usher (1995). Curriculum-based assessment of writing fluency in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11, 201-208.
Rowe, K., Pollard, J., & Rowe, K. (2005) Literacy, behavior, and auditory processing: Does teacher professional development make a difference? Australian Council for Educational Research. (Background paper to Rue Wright Memorial Award presented at the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Scientific Meeting Wellington, New Zealand, 8-11 May 2005.)
Sandler AD, Watson TE, Footo M, Levine MD, Coleman WL, Hooper SR. (1992) Neurodevelopmental study of writing disorders in middle childhood. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 13, 17–23.
Schoemaker, M.M., Ketelaars, C.E., van Zonneveld, M., Minderaa, R.B., & Mulder, T. (2005). Deficits in motor control processes involved in production of graphic movements of children with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, 390-395.
Semrud-Clikeman, M., Biederman, J., Sprich-Buckminster, S., Lehman, B. K., Faraone, S. V., & Norman, D. (1992). Comorbidity between ADHD and learning disabilities: A review and report in a clinically referred sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 439–448.
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171–186). New York: Guilford Press.
Shanahan, T. & Lomax, D. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading-writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116- 123.
Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1988).A developmental comparison of three theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 196–212.
Shinn, M. R., & Marston, D. (1985). Differentiating mildly handicapped, low-achieving and regular education students: A curriculum-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 31–45.
Soo, C., & Bailey, J. (2006). A review of functioning of attentional components in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities. Brain Impairment, 7, 133–147.
78
Speece, D.L., McKinney, J.D., Applebaum, M.I. (1985). Classification and validation of behavioural subtypes of learning disabilities. Journal of Education Psychology, 77, 67-77.
Spira, E.G., & Fischel, J.E. (2005). The impact of preschool inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity on social and academic development: A review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 755-773.
Swanson, H. L. (1983). A developmental study of vigilance in learning-disabled and nondisabled children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 415-428.
Swanson, H.L., Ashbaker, M.H., Sachse-Lee, C. (1996). Learning disabled reader’s working memory as a function of processing demands. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 252 - 275.
Swanson, H.L., & Berninger, V. (1996). Individual differences in children's working memory and writing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358–385.
Swanson J., Schuck, S., Mann, M., Carlson, C., Hartman, K., & Sergeant, J., et al. (2005). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: The SNAP and the SWAN Ratings Scales. Retrieved on January 2, 2009 from http://www.adhd.net/SNAP_SWAN.pdf.
Tannock, R., Purvis, K., & Schachar, R. (1993) Narrative abilities in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal peers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 21, 103-117.
Tarnowski, K.J, Prinz, R.J., Nay, S.M. (1986). Comparative analysis of attentional deficits in hyperactive and learning-disabled children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 341-345.
Thomas, C., Englert, C., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21–30.
Thomson, JB., Chenault, B., Abbott, R., Raskind, W.H., Richards, T., Aylward, E., & Berninger, V.W. (2005). Converging evidence for attentional influences on the orthographic word form in child dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 93–126.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 169-183.
Todd, R.D., Sitdhiraksa, N., Reich, W., Ji, T.H., Joyner, C.A., Heath, A.C., et al. (2002). Discrimination of DSM-IV and latent class attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder subtypes by educational and cognitive performance in a population-based sample of child and adolescent twins. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 820-828.
Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Tucha, O. & Lange, K.W. (2004). Handwriting in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Motor Control, 8, 461-471.
Vanderberg, R., & Swanson, HL. (2007). Which components of working memory are important in the writing process? Reading and Writing, 20, 721-752.
79
Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression. Report No. 84. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Wakely, M. B., Hooper, S. R., de Kruif, R. E. L., & Swartz, C. (2006). Subtypes of written expression in elementary school children: A linguistics based model. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 125-160.
Warner-Rogers, J., Taylor, A., Taylor, E., & Sandberg, S. (2000). Inattentive behavior in childhood: Epidemiology and implications for development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 520-536.
Watkinson, J. & Lee, S. (1992). Curriculum-based measures of written expression for learning disabled and nondisabled students. Psychology in Schools, 29, 184-192.
Weiss, M., Worling, D. & Wasdell, M. (2003). A chart review study of the Inattentive and Combined Types of ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 7, 1-9.
Weissenburger, J., & Espin, C. (2005). Curriculum-based measures of writing across grade levels. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 153–169.
Weschler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Intelligence Scale (WASI). San Antonio, Texas: The Psychological Corporation
Westerberg, H., Hirvikoski, T., Frossberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2004) Visuo-spatial working memory span: A sensitive measure of cognitive deficits in children with ADHD. Child Neuropsychology, 10, 155-161.
Wiener, J. (1986). Alternatives in the assessment of LD adolescent: A learning strategies approach. Learning Disability Focus, 1, 97-107
Wilding, J. (2003). Attentional difficulties in children: Weakness in executive function or problems in coping with difficult tasks? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 427–436.
Wilding, J. (2005). Is attention impaired in ADHD? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 487–505.
Willcutt, E. G., & Pennington, B. F. (2000). Psychiatric comorbidity in children and adolescents with reading disability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 1039-1048.
Willcutt, E.G., Doyle, A.E., Nigg, J.T., Faraone, S.V., Pennington, B.F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1336–1346.
Wright, J. (1992). CBM Measurement: Directions for Administering and Scoring CBM Probes in Writing. Excerpt from: Curriculum-Based Measurement: Manual for Teachers. Retrieved on 24 November 2006 from www.interventioncentral.com
TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency; ASL = Auditory Sentence Length Task; SWAN = Strength and Weaknesses of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Disorder and Normal
Behaviour. a Gender distribution was equivalent across groups: Pearson χ2(2, N = 80) = 1.95, p >.05 b Parent education values: 1 = Grades 0-8, 2 = Grades 9-11, 3 = High school/GED, 4 = Some college, 5 = College graduate, 6 = Post-college degree, value presented is the average *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
81
Table 2.
Group Differences on Handwriting Quality and the CBM Assessments of Written Expression
Note: TYP=Typical attention and reading, AP=Attention problems only, ARP=Attention and reading
problems, HW = Handwriting, TWW = words written, WSC = words spelled correctly, CWS = Correct
writing sequences, %WSC = WSC/TWW, %CWS = CWS/total writing sequences. a Square root transformation applied to normalize distribution but raw scores are presented to facilitate
interpretation. b F values and effect size are for follow-up univariate ANOVAs. c Reported results for group differences in the accuracy scores were computed using nonparametric
Kruskal-Wallis tests; Mann Whitney U were employed for post hoc pair-wise comparisons. d Bonferroni adjusted for multiple comparisons. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
82
Table 3.
Group Differences on the Teacher Ratings of Written Expression Skills and Language Arts
Language Arts 40.26 7.77 28.52 6.45 22.69 5.55 44.35*** 1 > 2, 3, 2 > 3 .54
Note: TYP = Typical attention and reading, AP = Attention Problem only, ARP = Attention + Reading
Problems. a Teacher rating data was unavailable for 3 children. b F values and effect size are for follow-up univariate ANOVAs, df = 2, 77. c Bonferroni adjusted for multiple comparisons. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
83
Table 4.
Zero-order and Partial Correlations for Inattention and Hyperactivity across Writing Variables
Zero-order Correlations Partial Correlations
Age Inattention Hyperactivity Inattention b Hyperactivity c
Age _ .04 .06 _ _
Inattention _ _ .82*** _ _
CBM writing variables
HW .28* -.60*** -.61*** -.21 -.29*
TWW .58*** -.43*** -.33** -.30** .02
WSCa .59*** -.48*** -.37** -.33** .01
CWSa .57*** -.50*** -.37** -.38*** .06
%WSC .36** -.46*** -.39*** -.27* .02
%CWS .36** -.44*** -.33** -.30** .08
Teacher ratings of writing skills
Handwriting -.06 -.78*** -.63*** -.59*** .13
Spelling -.14 -.75*** -.58*** -.59*** .06
Written Expression -.10 -.80*** -.62*** -.65*** .11
Language Arts -.08 -.77*** -.56*** -.65*** .20
Note: HW = Handwriting, TWW = Total words written, WSC = Words spelled correctly, CWS = Correct
ratings on Inattention Subscale of the Strength And Weaknesses of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity-
Impulsivity Disorder And Normal Behaviour (SWAN) scale, Hyperactivity = teacher ratings on
Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Subscale of SWAN. a Square root transformed. b Covarying age and hyperactivity-impulsivity. c Covarying age and inattention. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
84
APPENDIX A
Scor ing p rocedures and examples o f scored wr i t ing samples
85
Scoring Procedures for CBM Writing Samples in Present Study Note: scoring procedures used in this study were compiled by the author based on published studies that utilized CBM measures or analyzed handwriting (e.g., Jewel & Malecki, 2005; Parker et al.,1991; Gansle et al., 2004; Rosenblum et al., 2003; Wright, 1992) Directions for scoring Children’s writing samples are to be scored using procedures described below to provide an index of children’s writing fluency (production dependent scores), accuracy (production independent scores), legibility (handwriting scale), and overall quality (CWS). Score samples from the same grade at a time. Start with the fastest and easiest measures: 1)Handwriting, 2)Total words and 3) Total words spelled correctly , 4) Correct and Total writing sequences (CWS & TWS). Staple the provided slips of paper to the sample to record the scores and please identify special characteristics of the writing sample not captured in the scores in the space for notes on the slip. Keep a log of any dilemmas/issues you have scoring the data; Include the subject number, type of issue and if and how you resolved it. 1. Handwriting (HW): Use the scale below to assess the visual presentation of the writing sample based on a) legibility of letters written and b) uniformity of written product; these two scores will be combined to provide a score for overall visual presentation of the writing sample. (1= well below avg, 2=below avg, 3=avg, 4=above avg, 5=well above avg)
Score Letter legibility (letter form, orientation, pencil control)
Uniformity of written text (letter size, spacing between & within words, alignment)
1= well below avg
Student appears to have considerable difficulty writing letters; letters are barely identifiable. Written product may contain scribbles, incorrect letter forms, reversals, rotations, letters with missing or extra parts, letters too small or printed too lightly to read, etc.
Difficult to read and understand because of inconsistent and/or inappropriate spacing within and between words, letter size, and/or alignment. May include: strings of letters and words not separated by spaces, overlapping letters, writing that doesn't follow or fit between lines on the page.
2=below avg
Student appears to have some difficulty shaping and orienting letters. Reader has some difficulty identifying letters, but most letters can be identified. Large proportion letters may be inappropriately capitalized.
Some difficulty reading and/or understanding content because of issues with uniformity of writing such as letter strings, words not separated by spaces, overlapping letters, or writing that doesn't follow or fit between lines on the page.
3=avg, Letters are clearly identifiable and basically formed correctly. Upper and lower case letter use is mostly correct. There are no (or few for Gr.1) letter reversals or rotations.
Written product demonstrates adequate letter size, spacing between letters and words, and alignment of words across lined page. (Consider sample relative to grade level)
4=above avg,
Letters are clearly identifiable and readable. They are clearly and correctly formed, well proportioned there are no reversals, rotations
Clear, consistent and appropriate spacing between letters and words; letter size and alignment across the page makes written product easy to read and understand.
5=well above avg
Letters have a pleasant appearance that enhances readability of the written product. Letters are well formed, clearly printed, nicely proportioned relative to each other and lines on the page
Communicative value of the written product is enhanced by consistent and appropriate letter size, spacing between letters and words and alignment through easy readability and pleasing visual presentation.
2. Total Words Written (TWW): Count the total number of words written during the 3-minute period, including the words that are spelled incorrectly. Do not count numbers that are not spelled out (1987, 3, 29) as words. Be sure to count the title if written and proper names and nouns as words. If the student writes the story starter as part of the story, include those words in the count. Abbreviations count. Strings = one word but try to break apart any recognizable invented spelling words. Each line of letters strings counts as one word. Time needs be written as a word ; a.m. or p.m. are abbreviations so count as 1 word. 3. Words Spelled Correctly (WSC): Total number of words spelled correctly. Following Gansle et al. (2006) rules, consider words in isolation. Words do not have to be grammatically correct or make sense in the sentence. Draw a box around incorrectly spelled words. Words DO count as correct if they:
are correct abbreviations such as 'a.m.' and 'Mr.' contain incorrectly capitalized letters, but are spelled correctly such as 'fun' written as 'fuN' or
'Fun' Words DO NOT count as correct if:
• a letter reversal makes a word incorrect such as dog written as bog • the word includes as letter that is not recognizable • a proper noun that is not capitalized such as 'Sarah' written as 'sarah', or I written as 'i' • contractions missing punctuation such as 'didn't' written as 'didnt'
4. Correct Writing Sequences (CWS) and Total Writing Sequence (TWS): Count correct units of writing and their relation to one another. Mark the presence of a correct writing sequence with a caret (+) and mark missing or incorrect writing sequences with a (*) so that 'Total possible writing sequences' can be easily counted. Words and critical punctuation marks (e.g., periods) are considered separate writing units; each successive pair of correct writing units (writing sequence) from beginning to end of sample are counted. To receive credit, writing sequences must be correctly spelled and be grammatically correct. The words in each writing sequence must also make sense within the context of the sentence. The right form of the word (for example: our, are, their, there, they’re, etc.) must be used to count as a correct sequence. If two words should be an adjoined compound word (for example: outside, uptown, upstairs, etc.) and the two words are not connected, consider how the two words flow with the sentence separately, not as a compound. For compound words that are separate, give the student credit prior to and after the compound word but not the one between the two words (e.g. can not). Consider sentences separately; the word at the end of a sentence should never make a correct sequence with a word at the beginning of another sentence. This applies to when you determine a sentence should end and another begin and the punctuation to mark it as such is missing. 'Total number of possible writing sequences’ (TWS): Count all possible writing sequences, both incorrect & correct writing sequences in sample in order to calculate percentage and correct minus incorrect scores. For example: ^I^ played^ outside* *it ^was^ fun* is scored as TWS=8 / CWS=5 ^I^played^outside^.^It ^was ^fun^. CWS=TWS=8 Note: In practice (see example below) we found it more efficient and clear to use “+” and “o” instead of “^” and “*”.
87
Appendix A cont’d – Examples of Scored CBM Writing Samples Sample 1 – Grade 3.
Sample 2 – Grade 2.
88
APPENDIX B
Correlations between Curriculum Based Measures of Writing and Teacher Ratings of Writing
writing sequences, %WSC = WSC/TWW, %CWS = CWS/Total writing sequences. A significant gender difference was found for handwriting within the TYP group, t(32) = -3.32, p<.01;
and the AP group, t(26) = -3.79, p<.01. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
90
APPENDIX D
Means and Standard Deviations for Teacher Ratings of Writing by Gender and Group
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram for the Simple View of Writing Figure 2. Hypothetical Model of Relationships between Attention Problems and Written
Expression Outcomes
93
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of the Simple View of Writing
Note: The diagram in Fig. 1 was adapted from Berninger, V.W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice, Fig. 21.1 on page 350 in Ch. 21 in H. L. Swanson, K.R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities, 345-363. New York: Guilford Press.
The Simple View of Writing, adapted from Berninger et al., (2003) describes key developmental constraints that influence children’s writing during composing.
Compositional Fluency and Quality • Words, sentences, discourse • Overall writing accuracy • Cohesion and content
*Limited working memory resources hold and manipulate knowledge retrieved from long term memory to execute transcription, self regulation and text generation while composing.
94
Figure 2.
Hypothetical Model of the Relationships between Inattention and Written Expression