151

8818151172

Montague & Graves, 1993

Goodman, 1985; Hoffman & Rutherford, 1984;

Rieth, Polsgrove & Semmel, 1981

152

Isaacson, 1988

Christenson Thurlow Ysseldyke Vicar

1989Mastropieri Scruggs1994

88

88

per-

formance assessment

Wiggins, 1989, 1993

()

()

()

()

()

( )

()

()

()

153

()

()

86
pp120-123
58
79

()

()

86Newcomer & Barenbaum, 1991

()

86Newcomer, et.al., 1991

()

154

524

10.1611.1712.11

()

66

81

936

Y=.34X+19.55Y=.47X+16.85Y=

()

.31X+17.55

86

1.5

158

10.06 11.17 12.28

10.21 11.13 12.15

155

26

23

49

22

24

46

23

25

48

144

23

25

48

21

21

42

20

22

42

131

26

23

49

18

22

40

22

19

41

132

19

23

42

21

17

38

18

21

39

117

94

94

188

82

84

166

83

87

170

524

17

21

31

18

12

13

24

16

12

17

16

23

42

49

89

31

()

156

()

Engelmann Silbert

1983

35

2027

31

14

653

16

Hammill Larsen Test of Written

Test-31996Vocabulary

86500

157

1.00 .99

.87.96 .99

Excel 7.0
SPSS 7.0

()

Pearson product-moment correla-

tions

()

Test-

ing the difference between two nonindependent

rsHowell, 1987

()
one-way ANOVA

()

p < .05

.05 .01

158

104.77

41.13

121.37

41.26

117.25

48.38

105.93

45.14

133.86

47.33

137.85

55.20

89.98

40.55

102.12

44.78

119.56

54.23

92.96

31.83

84.06

39.01

91.12

46.30

147.71

53.24

138.12

50.33

165.27

55.17

541.34

170.46

579.53

173.57

631.05

198.07

63.03

23.38

74.13

25.40

75.99

30.54

66.60

26.96

84.73

30.37

93.65

32.98

60.09

24.21

70.73

29.37

82.26

34.87

57.20

19.87

54.61

25.43

62.71

28.86

57.81

21.04

54.83

25.25

67.79

30.17

304.72

97.78

339.05

108.60

382.39

140.57

.21**

.17**

.40**

.41**

.54**

.55**

.37**

.32**

.38**

.35**

.49**

.52**

.30**

.22**

.41**

.37**

.56**

.57**

.22**

.21**

.38**

.33**

.52**

.50**

.25**
.32**

.31**
.30**

.46**
.50**

.43**
.47**

.62**
.65**

.56**
.63**

*p <.05 **p <.01188166170

159

.27**

.30**

.43**

.42**

.55**

.57**

.40**

.39**

.47**

.46**

.53**

.55**

.42**

.39**

.53**

.47**

.57**

.56**

.29**

.30**

.50**

.44**

.58**

.54**

.21**
.38**

.29**
.40**

.49**
.61**

.43**
.55**

.64**
.66**

.57**
.64**

*p <.05 **p <.01188166170

12

12

.05

983

--
1

vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.

160

--
1

vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.

t p < .05 t
p < .01

--
1

vs.

vs.

vs.
vs.

vs.
vs.

vs.

vs.

vs.

vs.
vs.

vs.

vs.

vs.

vs.

tp < .05 t
p < .01

161

0.3

7.93

2.53

9.10

2.70

11.07

3.14

0.01

0.10

0.10

0.62

0.29

0.61

21.91

7.02

26.71

9.14

35.53

11.20

.63**

.61**

.70**

.72**

.52**

.57**

.08**

.01**

.19**

.13**

.24**

.24**

.37**

.31**

.72**

.74**

.72**

.71**

*p <.05 **p <.01188166170

162

F Scheff

One-way ANOVA

vs.

vs.

vs.

27.04

.00

21.88

.00

17.45

.00

22.47

.09

26.03

.00

27.89

.00

12.63

.00

35.20

.00

23.14

.00

24.27

.01

29.39

.00

18.44

.00

56.48

.00

15.57

.00

98.36

.00

163

64.12

100.94

70.91

163.78

91.04

164.24

(36.71)

(134.89)

(34.98)

(142.40)

(40.94)

(139.54)

49.82

117.53

74.74

168.30

89.16

180.96

(18.92)

(136.30)

(45.32)

(143.61)

(42.21)

(139.61)

35.18

101.71

62.61

142.91

66.94

154.67

(16.28)

(136.63)

(38.59)

(148.80)

(32.38)

(139.38)

42.12

196.94

59.04

125.78

58.37

123.20

(11.96)

(132.95)

(28.73)

(141.48)

(23.78)

(136.97)

42.88

186.41

52.61

135.39

46.12

139.33

(22.41)

(134.85)

(39.01)

(134.03)

(26.38)

(143.60)

N=17

N=17

N=23

N=23

N=49

N=49

31.24

61.53

44.96

85.70

46.80

194.04

(14.52)

(19.75)

(42.68)

(20.82)

(19.23)

(119.15)

29.53

75.06

40.22

93.83

52.08

112.84

(13.79)

(21.97)

(26.03)

(28.22)

(23.10)

(124.97)

21.94

65.71

41.04

82.57

43.76

100.14

(11.01)

(19.16)

(21.76)

(29.21)

(16.21)

(127.29)

22.88

57.47

36.30

71.87

36.00

178.71

(12.08)

(19.17)

(20.02)

(26.01)

(10.60)

(126.14)

21.65

58.94

30.83

78.35

28.22

185.22

(29.72)

(24.00)

(24.32)

(18.04)

(12.54)

(128.49)

N=17

N=17

N=23

N=23

N=49

N=49

164

-3.00
-6.82
-6.84
-6.45
-4.33

32
32
32
32
32

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

-8.10
-7.14
-6.19
-6.34
-7.67

44
44
44
44
44

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

-18.99
-11.10
-12.05
-10.33
-11.98

96
96
96
96
96

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

-5.10
-7.24
-8.16
-6.29
-5.94

32
32
32
32
32

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

-4.12
-6.70
-5.47
-5.20
-7.53

44
44
44
44
44

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

-12.19
-12.50
-12.44
-10.60
-12.82

96
96
96
96
96

.00
.00
.00
.00
.00

.01

165

12.71

11.59

17.48

12.30

17.80

12.90

(11.90)

(11.50)

(16.30)

(11.29)

(13.22)

(1.80)

10.00

10.00

10.17

10.52

10.16

10.65

(11.00)

(11.00)

(11.49)

(11.99)

(11.43)

(11.10)

12.88

30.35

17.91

38.09

23.53

42.51

(18.64)

(13.86)

(11.69)

(16.20)

(19.56)

(17.49)

N=17

N=17

N=23

N=23

N=49

N=49

-15.14

32

.00

-3.60

44

.00

-10.76

96

.00

-1.51

44

.14

-2.86

96

.01

-7.31

44

.00

-10.93

96

.00

-7.62

32

.00

0 t

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

166

()

----

()

()

()

()

88

829524

167

Hammill &

Bartel, 1995

Gajar Gajar, 1989; Gajar & Harriman,

1987

Deno, Mirkin &

Marson, 1980; Marston, 1982Marston,

1989; Videen, Deno & Matson, 1982

correct letter

sequencecorrect word

sequence

82

168

Deno1985

82
3940-49
75

86

81

86
(I)

81
3(1)
27-46
86

82

66

87
()

88
13331-366

169

Barenbaum, E., Newcomer, P., & Nodine, B.

(1987).
Children's ability to write
stories as a function of variation in task,
age, and developmental level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 175-188.
Brand, A. G. (1991). Construction tasks
for direct writing assessment: A frontier
revisited. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 340 037).
Christenson, S. L., Thurlow, M. L.,
Ysseldyke, J. E., & McVicar, R. (1989).
Written language instruction for students
with mild handicaps: Is there enough
quantity to ensure quality? Learning
Disability Quarterly, 12, 219-229.
Crowhurst, M. (1987).
Cohension in
argument and narration at three grade
levels. Research in the Teaching of
English, 21, 185-201.
Deno, S., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982).
Valid measurement procedures for
continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 358371.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Marston, D.
(1980). Relationships among simple
measures of written expression and performance on standardized achieve ment
tests ( Research Report No. 22 ).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Espin, C. A., Scierka, B. J., Skare, S., &
Halverson, N. (1999). Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 15(1), 5-27.
Finn, P. J. (1977). Computer-aided descripion of mature words choices in
writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell

170

(Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing,

54, 528-534.

measuring, judging (pp69-90). Urbana,

Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based

IL: National Council of Teachers of

measurement approach to assessing aca-

English.

demic performance: What it is and why

Gajar, A. H. (1989). A computer analysis of

do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curricu-

written language variables and a com-

lum-based

parison of compositions written by

special children (pp18-78). New York:

university students with and without

Guilford.

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 125-130.

measurement:

Assessing

Mastropieri, M. A. & Scruggs, T. E. (1994).

Effective instruction for special educa-

Gajar, A. H. & Harriman, N. (1987).

Identifying data based procedures for

tion (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Montague,

M.

&

Graves,

A.

(1993).

written expression disabilities at the

Improving

university level.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(4),

Education, 107(3),

252-258.

students

story

writing.

36-37.

Goodman, L. (1985). The effective schools

Neilsen, L. & Piche, G. L. (1981).

The

movement and special education. Teach-

influence of headed nominal complexity

ing Exceptional Children, 17, 102-105.

and lexical choice on teachers evalua-

Graves, A., Semmel, M., & Gerber, M.

(1994). The effects of story prompts on
the narrative production of students with

tion of writing.

Research in the

Teaching of English, 15(1), 65-73.

Newcomer, P. L. & Barenbaum, E. M. (1991).

and without learning disabilities. Learn-

The

ing Disability Quarterly, 17, 154-164.

children with learning disabilities: A

Hammill, D. D. & Bartel, N. R.

written

composing

ability

of

(1995).

review of the loterature from 1980 to

Teaching students with learning and

1990. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

behavior problems:

24(10), 578-593.

Managing mild to

moderate difficulties in resource and

Nodine, B. F., Barenbaum, E. M., &

inclusive settings (6th ed.). Austin, TX:

Newcomer, P. L. (1985). Story compo-

PRO-ED.

sition by learning disabled, reading

Hammill, D. D. & Larsen, S. C. (1996).

Test of written language: examiners
manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Hoffman, J. V. & Rutherford, W. L. (1984).

disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 167-179.

Parater, D. & Padia, W. (1983). Effects of
modes of discourse on writing perform-

Effective reading programs: A critical

ance in grades four and six.

review of outlier studies. Reading Re-

in the Teaching of

search Quarterly, 20, 79-92.

Isaacson, S. L. (1988).

Assessing the

Research

English, 17(2),

127-134.
Parker, R. I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J.

written product: Qualitative and quanti-

(1991).

tative measures. Exceptional Children,

jective measures of writing performance

Progress monitoring with ob-

for students with mild disabilities.

Ex-

Learning Disabil-

IL: Acott, Foresman and Comparny.

Vallecorsa, A. & Garriss, C. (1990). Story
composition skills of middle grade

ity Quarterly, 3(4), 88-98.

Quellmalz, E. S., Capell, F. J., & Chou, C. P.
(1982).

Con-

tent area reading (3 ed.). Clenview,

Informal assessment of

written expression.

Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (1989).

rd

ceptional Children, 58, 61-73.

Poteet, J. A. (1980).

171

Effects of discourse and re-

sponse mode on the measurement of

students with learning disabilities.

Ex-

ceptional Children, 57, 48-53.

Videen, J., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (1982).

of

Correct word sequences: A valid indica-

Educatonal Measurement, 19(4), 241-

tor of proficiency in written expression

258.

(Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis:

writing

competence.

Journal

Rieth, H. J., Polsgrove, L., & Semmel, M. I.

(1981).

Instructional variables that

make a difference: Attention to task and

University of Minnesota Institute for

Research on Learning Disabilities.
Wiggins, G. (1989).

A true test: Toward

beyond. Exceptional Education Quar-

more authentic and equitable assessment.

terly, 2(3), 61-72.

Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.

Shinn, M. & Marston, D. (1985).

Differ-

Wiggins, G. (1993).

Assessing student per-

entiating mildly handicapped, low achiev-

formance: Exporing the purpose and

ing, and regular education students: A

limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-

curriculum based approach.

Remedial

and Special Education, 6(2), 31-38.

Bass.
Wong, B., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989).

Thomas, D. & Donlan, D. (1980). Correla-

Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of

tions between holistic and quantitative

learning disabled adolescents' composing

methods of evaluating student writing,

problems.

grades 4 12. (ERIC Document Repro-

terly, 12, 300-322.

duction Service No. ED 221 976).

Tindal, G. A. &

Marston, D. B. (1990).

Classroom based assessment: Evaluating instructional outcomes. New York:

Merill/Macmillan.

Learning Disability Quar-

172

Bulletin of Special Education 1999, 18, 151172

National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.

THE VALIDITY OF INDICATORS

OF WRITING COMPETENCE

Ching-Yun Yeh
National Changhwa University of Education]

The main purpose of the study was to establish the validity -- criterion-related as well as
construct validity -- of five direct, objective and quantitative measures of written expression. The
writing measures were composed of four kinds of test stimuli (title, story starter, single picture and
four pictures)two modes of writing (story and expository), totally five types of writing samples.
Two types of scores--total number of words and the number of different words--were derived from
these measures.

Besides, validity of scores derived from sentence construction task were also

examined. The criterion measures included class grades of written expression and language. The
results showed that writing measures with the number of different words as dependent variable
correlated moderately with the criterion measures.

Moreover, number of different words derived

from each measure could differentiate students from various grades and with high/low ability on
written expression.

Scores of sentence construction correlated stongly with the criterion

measures and were able to discriminate students with different writing competence.
Key words: elementary, assessment, validity, mode of writing, writing stimulus, learning
disabilties, sentence construction, validity, total number of words, number of
different words, matures words