This study explored how the type of pictorial stimulus affects the quality of an individual's written expression. Cole, Muenz, Ouchi, Kaufman, and Kaufman in 1997 furnished initial evidence supporting Hooper, et al.‘s 1994 theory. A pictorial stimulus different from that used by Cole, et al. was developed from Hooper, et al.'s specifications, i.e., pictorial stimuli should be photographs rather than line drawings, should have a clear protagonist and should present a novel problem–situation that can be solved in a stepwise manner and compared to a conventional line drawing stimulus (from PIAT–R Written Expression) in its ability to evoke writing samples. It was hypothesized that the “Hooper” stimulus would yield higher scores than an atheoretical stimulus on items assessing structure and cohesiveness of the story, but not on items that assess writing mechanics. Participants comprised 25 men and women aged 17 to 46 years. Results indicate that Hooper, et al.‘s theory is more plausible than a conventional line-drawing stimulus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnastasiA. (1988) Psychological testing. (6th ed.) New York: Macmillan.
2.
AndersonP. L. (1989) Productivity, syntax, and ideation in the written expression of remedial and achieving readers. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 4, 115–124.
3.
BereiterC. (1980) Development in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
BoxG. E. P. (1954) Some theorems of quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems: II. Effects of inequality of variance and of correlation between errors in the two-way classification. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25, 484–498.
5.
BurtisP.BereiterC.ScardamaliaM.TetroeJ. (1983) The development of planning in writing. Chichester, Eng.: Wiley.
6.
Carrow-WoolfolkD. T. (1996) Oral and Written Language Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
7.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
ColeJ. C.HaleyK. A.MuenzT. A. (1997a) Written expression reviewed. Research in the Schools, 4(1), 17–34.
9.
ColeJ. C.McLeodJ. S. (in press) Children's written expression: The impact of the pictorial stimulus. Psychology in the Schools.
10.
ColeJ. C.MuenzT. A.OuchiB. Y.KaufmanN. L.KaufmanA. S. (1997b) The impact of the pictorial stimulus on the written expression output. Psychology in the Schools, 34(1), 1–9.
11.
ElmesD. G.KantowitzB. H.RoedigerH. L. (1992) Research methods in psychology. (4th ed.) St. Paul, MN: West.
12.
EnglertC. S. (1990) Unraveling the mysteries of writing through strategy instruction. New York: Springer-Verlag.
13.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.AndersonL. M.GreggS. L.AnthonyH. M. (1989) Exposition: Reading, writing, and the metacognitive knowledge of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 5–24.
14.
EnglertC. S.ThomasC. C. (1987) Sensitivity to test structure in reading and writing: A comparison of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 10, 93–105.
15.
FitzgeraldJ. (1987) Research on revision in writing. Review on Educational Research, 57, 481–506.
16.
FlowerL.HayesJ. (1981) A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
17.
FosterS. L.ConeJ. D. (1986) Design and use of direct observation procedures. New York: Wiley.
18.
GrahamS.HarrisK R, (1987) Improving composition skills of inefficient learners with self-instructional strategy training. Topics in Language Disorders, 7, 66–77.
19.
GrahamS.HarrisK R, (1989) A components analysis of cognitive strategy training: Effects of learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
20.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.MacArthurC. A. (1990) Learning disabled and normally achieving students' knowledge of the writing process. (Unpublished raw data).
21.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.MacArthurC. A.SchwartzS. (1991) Writing and writing instruction for students with learning disabilities: Review of a research program. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
22.
GrillJ. J.KirwinM. M. (1989) Written Language Assessment. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publ.
23.
HallidayM. A. K.HasanR. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman Group.
24.
HammillD. D.LarsenS. C. (1988) The Test of Written Language–Second Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
25.
HammillD. D.LarsenS. C. (1996) The Test of Written Language–Third Edition. Austin. TX: PRO-ED.
26.
HartmannD. P.WoodD. D. (1990) Observational methods. In BellackA. S.HersenM.KazlinA. E. (Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and therapy. (2nd ed.) New York: Plenum. Pp. 107–138.
27.
HayesJ. R.FlowerL. S. (1986) Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.
28.
HooperS. R.MontgomeryJ.SwartzC.ReedM. S.SandlerA. D.LevineM. D.WatsonT. E.WasileskiT. (1994) Measurement of written language expression. In LyonG. R. (Eds), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Pp. 375–417.
29.
KeppelG. (1991) Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30.
MarkwardtF. C.Jr. (1989) Peabody Individual Achievement Test–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
31.
MathesonD. W.BruceR. L.BeauchampK. L. (1978) Experimental psychology: Research design and analysis. (3rd ed.) Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32.
McCutchenD.PerfettiC. (1982) Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text, 2, 113–119.
33.
McGrewK. S.WerderJ. K.WoodcockR. W. (1991) WJ–R technical manual: A reference on theory and current research. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publ.
34.
MuenzT. A.OuchiB. Y.ColeJ. C. (in press) Item analysis of written expression scoring systems from the PIAT–R and WIAT. Psychology in the Schools.
35.
OuchiB. Y.ColeJ. C.MuenzT. A.KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (1996) Interrater reliability of the written expression subtest of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test–Revised: An adolescent and adult sample. Psychological Reports, 79, 1239–1247.
