Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between measures of written vocabulary and writing quality. Participants included 92 second-grade students and 101 fourth-grade students. Students completed two writing samples: one an experimenter-developed writing task and the other, a standardized assessment of writing quality. Research questions examined whether four vocabulary measures (vocabulary diversity, less frequent vocabulary, mean syllable length, number of polysyllabic words) demonstrated developmental differences, whether the vocabulary measures remained stable across two different writing prompts, and whether the vocabulary measures explained unique and shared variance beyond that explained by compositional length and compositional spelling. The results indicated that vocabulary diversity and less frequent vocabulary showed developmental differences across the two writing tasks. Vocabulary diversity was the only variable to remain stable across the two writing tasks. Commonality analysis revealed that vocabulary measures explained unique and shared variance in writing quality in all four models (2 grades and 2 writing prompts). Generally, vocabulary diversity was the most stable and consistent of the four vocabulary variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Olinghouse, N. G. (2008a). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N. G. (2008b). Modeling the writing development of second- and fourth-grade students. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Olinghouse, N. G., & Dierkes, J. (2008). Breaking down correct word sequences: The relative contribution of error categories. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Anderson, P. L. (1982). A preliminary study of syntax in the written study of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 359–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1979). Vocabulary knowledge (Tech. Rep. No. 136). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

  • Andolina, C. (1980). Syntactic maturity and vocabulary richness of learning disabled children at four age levels. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 372–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, J. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 58 (10, Serial No. 238).

  • Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, J. F., & Kame’enui, E. (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardmalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F. (1996). An exploratory study of morphological errors in children’s written stories. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1976). Evaluation research in education: Theory, principles, and practice. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 3–31). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1976). The living word vocabulary. Elgin, IL: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duin, A. H., & Graves, M. F. (1986). Effects of vocabulary instruction used as a prewriting technique. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duin, A. H., & Graves, M. F. (1987). Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espin, C. A., Weissenburger, J. W., & Benson, B. J. (2004). Assessing the writing performance of students in special education. Exceptionality, 12, 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, P. J. (1977). Computer-aided description of mature word choices in writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 69–89). Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, P. (1985). A child’s learning of English. Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, R. (1993). What a writer needs. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C. H. Friderksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (pp. 39–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajar, A. H. (1989). A computer analysis of written language variables and a comparison of compositions written by university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A., Naquin, G. M., & Slider, N. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternative measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review, 31, 477–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 78–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2003). Primary grade teachers’ instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Loynachan, C. (1993). The basic spelling vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NJ: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, L., McCutchen, D., Schwiebert, C., Quinlan, T., Eva-Wood, A., & Juelis, J. (2003). Morphological development in children’s writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 752–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grobe, C. (1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written language-3. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning disabled students’ composition skills: Self-control strategy training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinbert (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, T. P., & Mishler, C. (1980). Relationships between essay tests and objective tests of language skills for elementary school students. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacson, S. (1988). Assessing the writing product: Qualitative and quantitative measures. Exceptional Children, 54, 528–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J (1973). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, C. L. (1974) Using the computer to measure syntactic maturity and vocabulary density in the writing of elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

  • Macmann, G. M., Barnett, D. W., Lombard, T. J., Belton-Kocher, E., & Sharpe, M. N. (1989). On the actuarial classification of children: Fundamental studies of classification agreement. Journal of Special Education, 23, 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based writing probes. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., & Perfetti, C. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: An empirical example. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 481–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micro Power, & Light Co. (1995). Readability calculations (Windows version) (computer software). Dallas, TX: Micro Power & Light Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N. T., & Crump, W. D. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilsen, L., & Piche, G. L. (1981). The influence of headed nominal complexity and lexical choice on teachers’ evaluation of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R. I., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality, 2, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinsland, H. D. (1945). A basic vocabulary of elementary school children. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, F. P. (2000). Narrative writing: Development and teaching with children with writing difficulties. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H., Patterson, P., & Kantor, M. (1991). Morphological development and writing ability in children and adults. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 228–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, S., & Ratner, N. B. (2002). Measuring lexical diversity in children who stutter: Application of vocd. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 27, 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.

  • Watt, R. J. C. (2000). Concordance (computer software). Dundee, Scotland: R.J.C. Watt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide range achievement test-3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery test-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by Grant H324D0100003 from the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and Core Grant HD15052 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the John F. Kennedy Center, Vanderbilt University. Statements do not reflect the position or policy of these agencies, and no official endorsement by them should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Teacher Education and Special Education, Michigan State University, 360 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48854-1034, USA

    Natalie G. Olinghouse

  2. Williamsburg Collegiate, Brookyln, NY, USA

    Jacqueline T. Leaird

Authors
  1. Natalie G. Olinghouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacqueline T. Leaird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie G. Olinghouse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olinghouse, N.G., Leaird, J.T. The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Read Writ 22, 545–565 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation