Level and Trend of Writing Sequences: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Writing Interventions for Students With Disabilities

Abstract

We examined effects of intervention on the level and trend of text-writing sequences of students with disabilities and writing difficulties, in addition to potential moderating effects related to student demographics (i.e., disability status, age, gender, and race) and writing task (i.e., sentence, essay, and narrative). We reviewed 18 single-case experimental design studies with a total of 96 students and subsequently meta-analyzed 15 of these studies with a total of 79 students using mixed-effects linear regression and an information-theoretic ranking of competing models. Results indicate that writing interventions, including direct instruction and self-regulated strategy development, produced gradual improvement in the trend of correct writing sequences per minute. Older students produced higher levels of writing sequences, but younger students showed steeper trends during intervention. Furthermore, students had higher levels of writing fluency on sentence-writing tasks than on discourse-writing tasks (narratives and essays).

I Wrote Well Today: Practical Progress-Monitoring Approaches for Teachers of Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…Correct letter sequences (CLS) for CBM-W and correct writing sequences (CWS) for CBM-PW and CBM-WE may be calculated to determine the total production of correct statements. Incorrect letter/writing sequences (ILS/IWS) account for correctness of writing and are more frequently used for the purposes of progress monitoring (Datchuk et al, 2020). In this case, correct minus incorrect writing sequences (CIWS) are calculated to provide an overall fluency and accuracy score.…”

“…For example, some researchers recommend that sequences must be correct within the context of the sentence while others count the sequences in isolation. Some require correct spelling, while others allow for incorrect spelling as long as the spelling is phonetically accurate (e.g., spelling is incorrect but plausible; Datchuk et al, 2020). Although the scoring procedure itself is open to interpretation, it is essential that teachers decide upon scoring procedures in advance and then use these scoring procedures consistently across all probes.…”

“…For students with disabilities, these tasks may present an even more significant challenge, with over 95% of students with disabilities performing below proficient levels (NCES, 2012). For example, students with disabilities (a) write less fluently, affecting their overall output (Datchuk et al, 2020); (b) spend less time on and are unsure how to engage in the steps of the writing process (e.g., planning, organizing editing); and (c) produce writing that, as a result, is shorter with more errors than their typically developing peers (Taft & Mason, 2011).…”

Writing Interventions for Students With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

“…There is a rich literature examining writing interventions for students with high-incidence disabilities, including many meta-analyses (e.g., Kaldenberg et al, 2016;Datchuk et al, 2020;Gillespie & Graham, 2014;Graham et al, 2016Graham et al, , 2017Graham & Harris, 2003). Meta-analysis is a rigorous method of synthesizing weighted effect sizes (Borenstein et al, 2009).…”

“…This allows researchers to evaluate the impact of moderators (e.g., length and quality of intervention) on the overall results. In high-incidence disabilities, these meta-analyses report that writing intervention effectiveness varies depending on the type of intervention used (Gillespie & Graham, 2014;Graham et al, 2016), writing task(s) completed (Datchuk et al, 2020), and study quality (Gillespie & Graham, 2014).…”