In this study we examined the reliability and validity of various growth indicators in written expression for middle school students. In addition, we examined the effects of type and duration of writing on the validity and reliability of the growth indicators. Students (N = 112) in Grades 7 and 8 composed two story writing and two descriptive writing pieces. For each sample, students wrote for 3 and 5 minutes. The most reliable and valid predictor of student writing proficiency as measured by both teacher ratings and a district writing test was correct minus incorrect word sequences. No differences were found related to type or duration of writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1985). California achievement test. Monterey, CA: Author.
2.
Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English , 20, 141-159.
3.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
4.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus onExceptional Children, 19(8), 1-16.
5.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P.L. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368-371.
6.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., Mirkin, P., Lowry, L., Sindelar, P., & Jenkins, J. (1982). The use of standard tasks to measure achievement in reading, spelling, and written expression: A normative and developmental study (Research Report No. 87). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities .
7.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36-45.
8.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of written expression and performance on standardized achievement tests (Research Report No. 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
9.
Espin, C.A., Scierka, B.J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 5-27.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1983). Improving the reliability of curriculum-based measures of academic skills for psychoeducational decision making. Diagnostique, 8, 135-149.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20-28.
Grejda, G.F., & Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Effects of word processing on sixth graders' holistic writing and revisions. Journal of Education Research, 85, 144-149.
14.
Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1978). Test of written language. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
15.
Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1988). Test of written language-2. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Isaacson, S. (1988). Assessing the writing product: Qualitative and quantitative measures. Exceptional Children, 54, 528-534.
18.
Jenkins, J.R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
19.
Lee, L., & Canter, S.M. (1971). Developmental sentence scoring. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 36, 335-340.
20.
MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22-42.
21.
Madden, R., Gardner, E.F., Rudman, H.C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J.C. (1978). Stanford achievement test. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
22.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.18-78). New York: Guilford .
23.
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.
24.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M.H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models (3rd ed.). Boston: Irwin .
25.
Nichols, L.M. (1996). Pencil and paper versus word processing: A comparative study of creative writing in the elementary school. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 159-166.
26.
Outhred, L. (1989). Word processing: Its impact on children's' writing . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 262-264.
27.
Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1-17.
28.
Peterson, S.E. (1993). A comparison of student revisions when composing with pen and paper versus word-processing. Computers in the Schools, 9, 55-69.
29.
Robinson, S.L. (1991). Classroom technology for the human touch. Curriculum/Technology Quarterly, 1(1), 1-4.
30.
Scierka, B.J. (1998). Relation of general outcome measures to other written expression measures for secondary students. Unpublished master's thesis , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis .
31.
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.
32.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 211-218.
33.
Videen, J., Deno, S.L., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
34.
Watkinson, J.T., & Lee, S.W. (1992). Curriculum-based measures of written expression for learning-disabled and nondisabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 184-191.
