Technical Features of Sentence-Level Writing Curriculum-Based Measures and Language Sample Analysis for Emergent Bilingual Elementary Students

Abstract

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.

Keywords

writing curriculum-based measurement English learners

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abedi

Gándara

(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

Allen

A. A.

Jung

P.-G.

Poch

A. L.

Brandes

Shin

Lembke

E. S.

McMaster

K. 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

Allen

A. A.

Poch

A. L.

Lembke

E. 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

American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (n.d.). Written language disorders. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/written-language-disorders/

Beers

Nagy

(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

Berninger

V. W.

Amtmann

(2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In Swanson

H. L.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345–363). Guilford Press.

Center for Applied Linguistics. (2016). Annual report. https://www.cal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CAL-Annual-Report-2015-16.pdf

Chandler

B. W.

Bourget

J. L.

Reno

E. A.

(2021). Practice guide: Explicit instruction in sentence-combining for struggling writers. US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. https://nclii.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Explicit-Instruction-in-Sentence-Combining.pdf

Choi

McMaster

K. L.

Kim

(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.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11.

Connor

D. J.

Ferri

B. 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

12.

Deno

(2003). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770302800302

13.

Dietrich

Hernandez

(2022, December 6). Nearly 8 million people spoke a language other than English at home in 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/languages-we-speak-in-united-states.html#:~:text=The%20Hispanic%20population%20is%20the%20largest%20minority,than%20the%20next%20four%20most%20common%20languages

14.

Dockrell

Connelly

(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.

Dockrell

Lindsay

Connelly

Mackie

(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.

Ebert

K. 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

17.

Fox

Fairbairn

(2011). Test review: ACCESS for ELLs. Language Testing, 28(3), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211404195

18.

García

(2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00172.x

19.

Hall-Mills

Apel

(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.

Hughes

McGillivary

Schmidek

(1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. ProEd.

21.

Hunt

K. 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

22.

IRIS Center. (2011). Teaching English learners: Effective instructional practices. IRIS Center. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/ell/challenge/#content

23.

Jagaiah

Olinghouse

Kearns

(2020). Syntactic complexity measures: Variation by genre, grade-level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Reading & Writing, 33(10), 2577–2638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10057-x

24.

Kaufman

A. S.

Kaufman

N. L.

(2014). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (3rd ed.; (KTEA-3) [Technical manual]. Pearson.

25.

Kim

Al Otaiba

Folsom

Greulich

Puranik

(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.

Kim

Al Otaiba

Wanzek

(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.

Kim

Graham

(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.

Kim

Schatschneider

(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-Martinez

M. H.

Luk

Rollins

(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

30.

McMaster

K. L.

Lembke

E. S.

(2018). Picture-word prompts. Early Writing Project. https://earlywritingproject.org/tools/curriculum-based-measurement-toolkit/

31.

McMaster

K. L.

Lembke

E. S.

Shanahan

Choi

Schatschneider

Deusenberg Marshall

Birinci

McCollom

Garman

Moore

(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.

McMaster

K. L.

Lembke

E. S.

Shin

Poch

Smith

R. A.

Jung

Allen

Wagner

(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.

Miller

Iglesias

(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.

Pavelko

Owens

Ireland

Hahs-Vaughn

(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.

Peña

E. D.

Bedore

L. M.

Kester

E. 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.

Peña

E. D.

Bedore

L. M.

Vargas

A. 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

39.

Prath

(2016, April 12). Know these 4 areas of typical second-language “errors.” The ASHA Leader. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/4-quick-ways-to-identify-typical-language-patterns-of-bilingual-children/full/

40.

Reno

E. A.

Choi

McMaster

K. L.

Shanahan

(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.

Reno

E. A.

McMaster

K. 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.

Scott

(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.

Silverman

R. D.

Coker

Proctor

C. P.

Harring

Piantedosi

K. W.

Hartranft

A. 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.

Smith

R. A.

Lembke

E. 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.

Spies

T. G.

Dema

A. 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.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB

0.03 MB

0.02 MB

0.04 MB

0.02 MB