Identifying Writing Difficulties in First Grade: An Investigation of Writing and Reading Measures

Abstract

Early identification of students who are at risk for writing difficulties is an important first step in improving writing performance. First grade students (N = 150) were administered a set of early writing measures and reading measures in January. Sentence Writing Quality and Oral Reading Fluency demonstrated strong classification accuracy when a Teacher Rating was used to identify which students had writing difficulties (AUC > .90), and the combined measures yielded sensitivity and specificity indices exceeding 0.90. The combined reading and writing measures yielded AUCs of a higher magnitude than those associated with individual measures when norm‐referenced writing subtests were used to identify which students had writing difficulties (AUC in .80 range). The findings suggest that it may be possible to accurately identify which students may be at risk for writing difficulties within first grade.

Scoring measures of word dictation curriculum‐based measurement in writing: Effects of incremental administration

“…Later studies revealed that word spelling as measured by a word dictation (WD) task, was accurate at identifying students at risk for literacy problems in first grade (AUC = 0.780-0.873; Ritchey & Coker, 2014). Lembke et al (2003) found that WD had the strongest criterion validity in second grade compared with other copying and dictation tasks (r = 0.80-0.92).…”

“…Studies have indicated that tasks involving letter‐, word‐, and sentence‐level copying, dictation, and novel writing, where participants generate their own sentences instead of copying or taking dictation, are more reliable and valid for Kindergarten through third grade as compared with the late elementary grades (Coker & Ritchey, ; Lembke et al, ; McMaster & Campbell, ; McMaster et al, ; Ritchey, ; Ritchey & Coker, , ). Ritchey () found that letter writing, sound spelling, and word spelling were reliable ( r = 0.89–0.92) and valid ( r = 0.27–0.81) tasks to measure writing skills in Kindergarten at a single point in time.…”

“…Ritchey () found that letter writing, sound spelling, and word spelling were reliable ( r = 0.89–0.92) and valid ( r = 0.27–0.81) tasks to measure writing skills in Kindergarten at a single point in time. Later studies revealed that word spelling as measured by a word dictation (WD) task, was accurate at identifying students at risk for literacy problems in first grade (AUC = 0.780–0.873; Ritchey & Coker, ). Lembke et al () found that WD had the strongest criterion validity in second grade compared with other copying and dictation tasks ( r = 0.80–0.92).…”

Exploration of New Complexity Metrics for Curriculum-Based Measures of Writing

“…To be most effective, CBM should have evidence that it is technically adequate and sensitive to change across time, allowing it to be used both as a universal screener and as a tool to monitor student progress (Deno et al, 2009). While CBM-W tasks designed to assess passage-level composition (e.g., story, picture, and photo prompts) demonstrate evidence of technical adequacy and face validity for students in third grade and above (McMaster, Du, & Pétursdóttir, 2009; McMaster et al, 2011; Ritchey & Coker, 2014), research indicates that sentence-level tasks (e.g., picture word, sentence copying, and sentence writing tasks) are more appropriate for students in the early elementary grades (Coker & Ritchey, 2014; Lembke, Deno, & Hall, 2003; McMaster et al, 2009; McMaster et al, 2011; Ritchey & Coker, 2014).…”

Piloting a Mathematics‐Writing Intervention with Late Elementary Students At‐Risk for Learning Difficulties

“…Each of these scoring methods shared similarities with scoring of general writing samples (Koutsoftas & Gray, 2012;Olinghouse & Wilson, 2013). We did not, however, locate any MW assessments in which student work was scored according to writing curriculum-based measurement (CBM) recommendations, such as percentage of correct word sequences, which is often described as an effective method for scoring the writing of students with or at-risk for learning difficulties (McMaster, Du, Parker, & Pinto, 2011;Ritchey & Coker, 2014).…”