Do Children Classified With Specific Language Impairment Have a Learning Disability in Writing? A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

In this meta-analysis, we examined whether children classified with specific language impairment (SLI) experience difficulties with writing. We included studies comparing children with SLI to (a) typically developing peers matched on age ( k = 39 studies) and (b) typically developing younger peers with similar language capabilities ( k = six studies). Children classified with SLI scored lower on writing measures than their typically developing peers matched on age ( g = −0.97) when all writing scores in a study were included in the analysis. This same pattern occurred for specific measures of writing: quality ( g = −0.92), output ( g = −1.00), grammar ( g = −0.68), vocabulary ( g = −0.68), and spelling ( g = −1.17). A moderator analysis revealed that differences in the writing scores of children classified with SLI and typically developing peers matched on age were not as large, but were still statistically significant, when assessment involved a contrived response format (vs. measured based on students’ writing), researcher-created measures (vs. norm-referenced tests), or SLI included just children with a speech disorder (vs. children with a language disorder). Children classified with SLI further scored lower on writing than typically developing peers with similar language capabilities ( g = −0.47). We concluded that children with SLI experience difficulties with writing.

Oral sentence generation training to improve fifth and 10th graders’ writing

“…In line with this research, a recent meta-analysis (Graham, Hebert, Fishman, Ray, & Rouse, 2020) showed a consistent and significant association between oral and written language problems from the preschool years to adolescence (Grade 12). According to the authors, three theoretical explanations can be given for the link between oral language and writing difficulties.…”

Confirmatory factor analysis of the WIAT‐III in a referral sample

“…Instead, composites appear to be created based on their academic domain. While there is intuitive logic to such a structure, it is also possible that the latent structure of the battery is influenced by other shared abilities, such as students' functioning at various levels of language, a concept that predicts the cross‐domain deficits often found in students with reading and language disorders (Coleman et al, 2009; Graham et al, 2020; Snowling et al, 2020).…”

“…Ehri, 2000). Indeed, students with dyslexia often demonstrate spelling problems (Coleman et al, 2009), and students with oral language impairment display challenges with written composition and reading comprehension (Graham et al, 2020; Snowling et al, 2020). In the KTEA‐3 manual factor analysis, subtest variance unexplained by academic domain continued to demonstrate an association with other subtests at a common level of language (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014).…”

A sentence-combining intervention for struggling writers: response to intervention

“…By corollary oral language at word, sentence and text level supports text generation (Abbott & Berninger, 1993;Babayiğit & Stainthorp, 2010;Kim, Al Otaiba, Folsom, Greulich, & Puranik, 2014;Olinghouse & Leaird, 2009;Savage, Kozakewich, Genesee, Erdos, & Haigh, 2017;Sénéchal, Hill, & Malette, 2018). The importance of oral language in supporting written text production is evident by the significant difficulties in writing experienced by children with language problems (for review see Graham, Hebert, Fishman, Ray, & Rouse, 2020).…”

“…Poor readers with a reasonable level of listening comprehension seem to have responded better to the intervention on the sentence combining measure while those with poor oral language skills may be resistant to intervention (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002). Those with poor oral language skills experience difficulties with both wordand sentence-level skills (Graham et al, 2020) and this may explain their resistance to intervention as compared to poor readers. Reading skills are thus important for the initial response to the sentence combining intervention, and there was, in fact, some small gains to reading decoding made by participants perhaps as a side effect of the reading exposure undertaken during the intervention.…”