Identifying Indicators of Written Expression Proficiency for Middle School Students

By C. Espin, Jongho Shin, S. Deno, S. Skare, S. Robinson, Barb Benner. 2000

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8ad4973e7aad294ff769800408ad5c8a68baed29

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. A. Vanderheyden
2. Kristen L. McMaster
3. Kristin A. Gansle
4. C. Espin
5. Christine K. Malecki
6. J. Jewell
7. G. Noell
8. D. L. Coker

In Education

1. A. Vanderheyden
2. Kristen L. McMaster
3. Kristin A. Gansle
4. C. Espin
5. Christine K. Malecki
6. J. Jewell
7. G. Noell
8. Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray

In Language and Linguistics

1. Christine K. Malecki
2. J. Jewell
3. D. L. Coker
4. Kristen D. Ritchey

Citations in the corpus

• DEVELOPMENTAL, GENDER, AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN SCORING CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT WRITING PROBES (2003, methodology): “For instance, some researchers promote using fluency measures over “percentage” indices when monitoring student progress (Espin et al., 2000; Tindal & Parker, 1989).”
• Examining the transcription-writing link: Effects of handwriting fluency and spelling accuracy on writing performance via planning and translating in middle grades (2017, unknown): “, 1997; Kent, Wanzek, Petscher, Al Otaiba, & Kim, 2014), including curriculum-based measurement research (Espin et al., 2000), with proven validity (Dockrell,”
• Technical Features of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing (2007, background): “…and noted that whereas there is some evidence of the utility of these measures for elementary students (primarily from IRLD work), researchers have shown stronger technical adequacy of percentage measures (%WSC or %CWS; Tindal & Parker, 1989a) or CIWS (e.g., Espin et al., 2000) for older students.”
• Measuring Written Language Ability in Narrative Samples (2007, methodology): “Total words and words spelled correctly have met validity demands for first through sixth graders by showing high correlations with criterion measures of written and oral language and school achievement (Espin et al., 2000).”
• Moving Beyond Total Words Written: The Reliability, Criterion Validity, and Time Cost of Alternate Measures for Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing (2002, background): “75, depending on the type and length of the probe administered (Espin et al., 2000).”
• The Utility of CBM Written Language Indices: An Investigation of Production-Dependent, Production-Independent, and Accurate-Production Scores (2005, methodology): “…& Shin, 2001; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1990), eligibility decisions (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1997; Shinn, Ysseldyke, Deno, & Tindal, 1982), progress monitoring (Deno et al., 2001; Marston, Fuchs, & Deno, 1986), and other alternative uses (Deno et al., 2001; Elliott & Fuchs, 1997; Espin et al., 2000).”
• The Technical Adequacy of Curriculum-Based and Rating-Based Measures of Written Expression for Elementary School Students (2006, background): “…moderate validity coefficients with standardized tests (e.g., Espin, De La Paz, Scierka, & Roelofs, 2005; Espin, Scierka, Skare, & Halverson, 1999; Espin et al., 2000; Gansle et al., 2002; Gansle et al., 2004; Marston, 1989), and that has found teachers generally rate the alternate CBMs as more…”