The Insufficiency of Norm-Referenced Writing Assessment for Identifying Writing Weaknesses in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools Pub Date : 2025-10-08 Epub Date: 2025-07-25 DOI:10.1044/2025_LSHSS-25-00009

Brittany Grey, Marren C Brooks, Emily A Lund, Krystal L Werfel

{"title":"The Insufficiency of Norm-Referenced Writing Assessment for Identifying Writing Weaknesses in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.","authors":"Brittany Grey, Marren C Brooks, Emily A Lund, Krystal L Werfel","doi":"10.1044/2025_LSHSS-25-00009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study examined the internal consistency reliability, interrater reliability, and concurrent validity of the norm-referenced Test of Early Written Language-Third Edition (TEWL-3) to determine if it is an appropriate measure to use when determining if elementary children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) meet grade-level writing expectations.Method: Participants included 111 second-grade children across three groups: children with typical hearing (CTH), children who use cochlear implants, and children who use hearing aids. Reliability and validity were compared across all groups.Results: Reliability was very strong across groups. CTH followed expected patterns of validity, whereas patterns of validity differed for DHH. Results indicated, on average, that all groups performed in the average or above average ranges on the TEWL-3 but in the not proficient range on the 6 + 1 Trait Writing Rubric: Grades K-2.Conclusions: Given the purpose of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures and the differences in performance on the TEWL-3 and the 6 + 1 Trait Writing Rubric: Grades K-2 across groups, speech-language pathologists should not rely on norm-referenced writing assessments to make eligibility decisions for specialized writing intervention services, especially for the DHH population.Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29618573.","PeriodicalId":54326,"journal":{"name":"Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools","volume":" ","pages":"1054-1068"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_LSHSS-25-00009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined the internal consistency reliability, interrater reliability, and concurrent validity of the norm-referenced Test of Early Written Language-Third Edition (TEWL-3) to determine if it is an appropriate measure to use when determining if elementary children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) meet grade-level writing expectations.

Method: Participants included 111 second-grade children across three groups: children with typical hearing (CTH), children who use cochlear implants, and children who use hearing aids. Reliability and validity were compared across all groups.

Results: Reliability was very strong across groups. CTH followed expected patterns of validity, whereas patterns of validity differed for DHH. Results indicated, on average, that all groups performed in the average or above average ranges on the TEWL-3 but in the not proficient range on the 6 + 1 Trait Writing Rubric: Grades K-2.

Conclusions: Given the purpose of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures and the differences in performance on the TEWL-3 and the 6 + 1 Trait Writing Rubric: Grades K-2 across groups, speech-language pathologists should not rely on norm-referenced writing assessments to make eligibility decisions for specialized writing intervention services, especially for the DHH population.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29618573.

查看原文本刊更多论文

规范参照写作评价在识别聋儿和重听儿童写作缺陷中的不足。

目的：本研究考察了《早期书面语言规范参照测验（第三版）》（TEWL-3）的内部一致性信度、判读者间信度和并发效度，以确定它是否适合用于判断失聪和听力障碍小学生（DHH）是否符合年级水平的写作期望。方法：参与者包括111名二年级儿童，分为三组：典型听力儿童（CTH），使用人工耳蜗的儿童和使用助听器的儿童。比较各组的信度和效度。结果：组间的信度非常高。CTH遵循预期效度模式，而DHH的效度模式不同。结果表明，平均而言，所有组在TEWL-3上的表现都在平均或高于平均水平，但在6 + 1特质写作标准：K-2等级上的表现都在不熟练的范围内。结论：考虑到规范参考和标准参考测量的目的，以及不同群体在TEWL-3和6 + 1特质写作标准：K-2等级上的表现差异，言语语言病理学家不应该依赖规范参考写作评估来决定专业写作干预服务的资格，特别是对于DHH人群。补充资料：https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29618573。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

12.50%

发文量

165

期刊介绍： Mission: LSHSS publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to the practice of audiology and speech-language pathology in the schools, focusing on children and adolescents. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research and is designed to promote development and analysis of approaches concerning the delivery of services to the school-aged population. LSHSS seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of audiology and speech-language pathology as practiced in schools, including aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; childhood apraxia of speech; classroom acoustics; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; fluency disorders; hearing-assistive technology; language disorders; literacy disorders including reading, writing, and spelling; motor speech disorders; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; voice disorders.