Technical quality of language sample analysis (LSA) metrics using sentence-level writing curriculum-based measures was examined with 73 U.S. emergent bilinguals (English learners) in Grades 1–3. Alternate-form reliability, criterion-related validity between LSA metrics with writing curriculum-based measure metrics, predictive validity between fall LSA scores and winter scores on a standardized English proficiency measure, discrimination among grades, and sensitivity to growth were evaluated. The LSA metric mean length of T-Unit in words showed technical quality using the mean of two forms in the fall for Grades 2 and 3, while a number of different words maintained technical quality in Grades 2 and 3 across seasons using individual and the mean of two forms. Discrimination among grades and sensitivity to growth evidence were weaker.
AbediJ.GándaraP. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00077.x
2.
AllenA. A.JungP.-G.PochA. L.BrandesD.ShinJ.LembkeE. S.McMasterK. M. (2020). Technical adequacy of curriculum-based measures in writing in grades 1-3. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 563–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1689211
3.
AllenA. A.PochA. L.LembkeE. S. (2018). An exploration of alternative scoring methods using curriculum-based measurement in early writing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(2), 85–99. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26742893
BeersS.NagyW. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?Reading & Writing, 22(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5
6.
BerningerV. W.AmtmannD. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345–363). Guilford Press.
ChoiS.McMasterK. L.KimN. (2025). Toward the fair and valid use of curriculum-based measurement for students with intensive writing needs and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Assessing Writing, 65, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2025.100948
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
ConnorD. J.FerriB. A. (2005). Integration and inclusion–A troubling nexus: Race, disability, and special education. Journal of African American History, 90, 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/JAAHv90n1-2p107
DockrellJ.ConnellyV. (2009). The impact of oral language skills on the production of written text. Teaching and Learning Writing, 11(6), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X421919
15.
DockrellJ.LindsayG.ConnellyV.MackieC. (2007). Constraints in the production of written text in children with specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300202
16.
EbertK. D. (2020). Language sample analysis with bilingual children: Translating research to practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 40(2), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000209
Hall-MillsS.ApelK. (2015). Linguistic feature development across grades and genre in elementary writing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46(3), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0043
20.
HughesD.McGillivaryL.SchmidekM. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. ProEd.
21.
HuntK. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(1), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165818
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2014). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (3rd ed.; (KTEA-3) [Technical manual]. Pearson.
25.
KimY.Al OtaibaS.FolsomJ.GreulichL.PuranikC. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first-grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(1), 199. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0152)
26.
KimY.Al OtaibaS.WanzekJ. (2015). Kindergarten predictors of third grade writing. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 27–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.009
27.
KimY.GrahamS. (2022). Expanding the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW): Reading–writing relations, and dynamic relations as a function of measurement/dimensions of written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000564
28.
KimY.SchatschneiderC. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129
29.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.OhM. H.LukG.RollinsA. (2023). Special education representation trends vary by language status: Evidence of underrepresentation in Tennessee. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231178285
McMasterK. L.LembkeE. S.ShanahanE.ChoiS.AnJ.SchatschneiderC.Deusenberg MarshallM.BirinciS.McCollomE.GarmanC.MooreK. (2025). Supporting teachers’ data-based individualization of early writing instruction: An efficacy trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58, 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241300324
32.
McMasterK. L.LembkeE. S.ShinJ.PochA.SmithR. A.JungP.AllenA.WagnerK. (2020). Supporting teachers’ use of data-based instruction to improve students’ early writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000358
33.
MillerJ.IglesiasA. (2023). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT), Version 21 [Computer Software]. Madison, WI: SALT Software, LLC.
34.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024a). English learners in public schools. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf
35.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024b). NAEP Report Card: Reading. National Assessment of Educational Progress, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/?grade=4
36.
PavelkoS.OwensR.IrelandM.Hahs-VaughnD. (2016). Use of language sample analysis by school-based SLPs: Results of a nationwide survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0044
37.
PeñaE. D.BedoreL. M.KesterE. S. (2016). Assessment of language impairment in bilingual children using semantic tasks: Two languages classify better than one. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 51(2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12199
38.
PeñaE. D.BedoreL. M.VargasA. G. (2023). Exploring assumptions of the bilingual delay in Children with and without developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(12), 4739–4755. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00117
RenoE. A.ChoiS.McMasterK. L.ShanahanE. (2025). Technical features of sentence-level curriculum-based measures and language sample analysis for students with writing difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251361902
41.
RenoE. A.McMasterK. L. (2024). Measuring linguistic growth in sentence-level writing curriculum-based measures: Exploring complementary scoring methods. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 55(2), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_LSHSS-23-00056
42.
ScottC. (2020). Language sample analysis of writing in children and adolescents: Assessment and intervention contributions. Topics in Language Disorders, 40(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000213
43.
SilvermanR. D.CokerD.ProctorC. P.HarringJ.PiantedosiK. W.HartranftA. M. (2015). The relationship between language skills and writing outcomes for linguistically diverse students in upper elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 116(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1086/683135
44.
SmithR. A.LembkeE. S. (2021). Aspects of technical adequacy of an early-writing measure for English language learners in grades 1 to 3. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 47(1), 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508420947157
45.
SpiesT. G.DemaA. A. (2014). Beyond word meaning: Vocabulary instruction for students with exceptional language needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(5), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451213513798
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
