The evaluation of writing abilities in children is a critical concern among regular and special educators. One major problem has been the shortage of technically adequate diagnostic instruments. To provide for a more comprehensive assessment of written language, two new tests, based on a multiple writing samples approach, have been developed for addition to the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (WJ). In this study, the relationships among the new and existing WJ writing tests and other commonly used writing tests, including the Test of Written Language, the Picture Story Language Test, and the MAT6 Writing Test of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests, were investigated with a sample of 44 fifth-grade children. The results supported the concurrent and construct validity of the WJ writing tests. A recommendation is made that the multiple samples writing approach to the direct measurement of writing ability be subjected to further experimental study and be considered as an alternative method to writing assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastasiA. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
2.
AndersonP.L. (1982). A preliminary study of syntax in the written expression of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 359–362.
3.
BentonS.L., & KiewraK.A. (1986). Measuring the organizational aspects of writing ability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23,377-386.
4.
Bradley-JohnsonS., & LesiakJ. (1981). Assessment of written expression: A critique of procedures and instruments.Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing.
5.
BrelandH.M., & GaynorJ.L. (1979). A comparison of direct and indirect assessments of writing skill. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16,119-128.
6.
BrownR. (1981). National assessments of writing ability. In FredericksenCH. & DominicJ.F. (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication:Vol. 2. Process, development, and communication (pp. 31–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
CharneyD. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18,65–81.
8.
ComptonC. (1984). A guide to 75 tests for special education.Belmont, CA: Fearon.
9.
FoleyJ.F. (1971). Evaluation of learning in writing. In B.BloomS., JHastingsT., & G.MadausF. (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning (pp. 767–813). New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
HammillD.D., & LarsenS.C. (1983). Test of Written Language.Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
11.
HesslerG.L. (1982). Use and interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery.Allen, TX: DLM/Teaching Resources.
12.
HoganT. RFarrR.C.PrescottG.A., & BalowI.H. (1986). Writing test of the Metropolitan Achievement Tests (6th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
13.
HoganT.P.FarrR.C.PrescottG.A., & BalowI.H. (1987a). Metropolitan Achievement Tests: Writing Test: Manual for interpreting. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
14.
HoganT.P.FarrR.C.PrescottG.A., & BalowI.H. (1987b). Metropolitan Achievement Tests: Writing Test: Norms and technical information booklet.San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
15.
IsaacsonS. (1988). Assessing the writing product: Qualitative and quantitative measures. Exceptional Children, 54, 528–534.
16.
LarsenS.C. (1987). Assessing the writing abilities and instructional needs of students. Austin TX: Pro-Ed.
MatherN.SpodakR., & VogelS. (1989). [The performance of learning disabled students on several writing tests]. Unpublished raw data. '
19.
MaxwellJ.C. (1973). National assessment of writing: Useless and uninteresting. English Journal, 62,1254-1257.
20.
McCollyW. (1970). What does educational research say about the judging of writing ability?Journal of Educational Research, 64,148-156.
21.
MoranM.R. (1987). Options for written language assessment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 79 (5), 1–10.
22.
MorrisN.T., & CrumpW.D. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,163-172.
23.
MossP.A.ColeN.S., & KhampalikitC. (1982). A comparison of procedures to assess written language skill at grades 4,7, and 10. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 37–47.
24.
MyklebustH.R. (1965). Development and disorders of written language, Volume1: Picture Story Language Test. New York: Grune & Stratton.
25.
NoyesE.S.SaleW.M., & StalnakerJ.M. (1945). Reporton the first six tests in English composition.New York: College Board.
26.
PoplinM.S.GrayR.LarsenS.BanikowskiA., & MehringT. (1980). A comparison of components of written expression abilities in learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at three grade levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 46–53.
27.
SpandelV., & StigginsR.J. (1980). Direct measures of writing skill: Issues and applications.Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
28.
StigginsR.J. (1982). A comparison of direct and indirect writing assessment methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 16,101-114.
29.
ThomasC.C.EnglertC.S., & GreggS. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8 (1), 21–30.
