912414

research-article2020
LDQXXX10.1177/0731948720912414Learning Disability QuarterlyAllen and Lembke

Original Research
Learning Disability Quarterly

The Effect of a Morphological Awareness

1­–13
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Intervention on Early Writing Outcomes sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0731948720912414
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720912414
journals.sagepub.com/home/ldq

Abigail A. Allen, PhD CCC-SLP1 and Erica S. Lembke, PhD2

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a morphological awareness intervention on the spelling and
writing of second-grade (n = 16) and third-grade (n = 10) students at risk for learning disabilities. The intervention was
provided for 25 min per session 4 to 5 times per week for 5 weeks. Students were randomly assigned to the intervention
(n = 13) or comparison (n = 13) condition. Students were pre- and posttested using standardized tests of spelling and
writing and were progress monitored twice weekly with a curriculum-based measure of writing. Intervention effects were
measured using a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on each outcome. Growth on the progress monitoring task
was measured using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Results indicated the intervention did not have a significant effect
on outcomes but a moderate positive effect was detected on writing. Practical applications including intervention revisions
and feasibility of use are discussed.

Keywords
writing, instructional strategies, at risk, language arts

The ability to communicate in writing is an essential skill for
people in a literate society. However, almost 75% of
American students are not proficient on national tests of
writing (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011).
Although the performance of students with disabilities was
not explicitly reported in the 2011 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) writing results, previous
research has suggested students with disabilities and those
who struggle with writing typically produce shorter, less
complex, and lower quality writing compared with typically
developing peers (Graham et al., 2013). Students who strug-
gle with writing and literacy during their K–12 education
have a lack of opportunities and poorer outcomes in postsec-
ondary education and employment (National Commission
on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges,
2004). Writing instruction has not kept up with societal
demands. Researchers have found students write for only 20
min per day in Grades 1 to 3 and teachers feel inadequately
prepared to teach writing (Cutler & Graham, 2008). One
way to address this instructional gap is to design effective
instruction that specifically targets written language skills.
At the earliest stages of writing, this instruction is typically
provided in the form of transcription lessons.
Morphological Contributions to
Spelling and Writing
For writers to find correct and precise words they want to
use, they must understand what words mean, and part of a
word’s meaning is contained in its morphological struc-
ture (Carlisle & Fleming, 2003; Perfetti, 2007). The mor-
phological structure of a word can tell a writer the word’s
acceptable forms and proper usage, and the ability to rec-
ognize morphological relationships between words gives
students access to different word choices when writing
text (Bowers et al., 2010; Green et al., 2003; Nagy et al.,
2014). Morphological awareness refers to the ability to
recognize and manipulate the smallest units of meaning in
language (Apel & Werfel, 2014). Although experts ini-
tially suggested that students do not have morphological
awareness until mid- to late-elementary grades, current
research has shown that students as young as kindergarten
and first grade have awareness of morphological word
structure and this awareness affects how they use and spell
words (Apel & Werfel, 2014; Wolter et al., 2009). For
example, young students spell words differently depend-
ing on the number of morphemes in the word (Rubin,
1988; Treiman & Cassar, 1996; Wolter et al., 2009). Rubin
(1988) found in words with one morpheme and a final
consonant blend (e.g., “bind”), students typically left out
one of the final consonants, but in words with multiple
1
Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
2
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Abigail A. Allen, Department of Education and Human Development,
Clemson University, 215 Holtzendorff Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
Email: aaallen@clemson.edu
2 Learning Disability Quarterly 00(0)
morphemes that are pronounced as a final consonant blend
(e.g., “rained”), students were more likely to write both
letters in the word ending. In addition, morphological
awareness has uniquely predicted spelling ability in
Grades 2 to 3 beyond other linguistic variables like ortho-
graphic knowledge (Apel et al., 2012). Morphological
awareness not only affects how students spell words but
how they compose written sentences.
Students need to be able to use morphological knowl-
edge to create varied sentence structures (Nagy et al.,
2014). For example, knowing that teach is a verb but that
attaching -er to the end creates a noun dictates how that
word is used within a sentence (“My teacher was absent”
instead of “My teach was absent”). McCutchen and Stull
(2015) asked fifth graders to combine a series of short sen-
tences (e.g., “The snake was slow. The snake moved his
coils down the tree.”). McCutchen and Stull (2015) noted
that students would have to rely on their morphological
knowledge to accurately combine statements into a longer
complex sentence using phrases such as “moved slowly”
or “the coiled snake.” They found fifth graders’ morpho-
logical awareness predicted their accurate word produc-
tion and sentence combining. Ultimately, morphological
knowledge influences word-level affix knowledge, under-
standing grammatical function of words, and how to use
words in sentences (Nagy et al., 2014). In addition to mor-
phological awareness, other factors influence how young
students write.
Student-Level Factors That Influence
Writing Proficiency
Oral Language
The act of writing is essentially translating spoken lan-
guage into text. Oral language ability is logically linked
to written language performance, particularly in early
elementary grades (Coker, 2006; Kim et al., 2011, 2014,
2018; Kim & Schatschneider, 2017). In typically devel-
oping children, oral language skills like expressive
vocabulary, grammatical knowledge (Kim et al., 2011,
2014), listening comprehension, and oral narrative ability
(Kim et al., 2018) in concert with transcription skills
(Kim et al., 2011, 2018) are uniquely related to writing
ability in Grades K–3. Speech and language impairments
are associated with disorganized, shorter, and lower qual-
ity writing (Kim, Puranik, & Al Otaiba, 2015). A key
finding from Kim, Puranik, and Al Otaiba’s (2015) work
with first graders with speech and language impairments
was that although students with language impairments
produced more disorganized writing than their peers,
those differences did not account for growth trajectories;
that is, the gap between typically developing students and
students with language impairments did not widen over
time. Similarly, Coker (2006) found that in first grade,
students with language difficulties produced lower qual-
ity writing initially but oral language did not account for
participants’ growth in writing. Empirical work in vali-
dating the connection between oral and written language
is ongoing and initial results indicate that oral language
supports and influences writing quality and productivity,
although not necessarily growth.
Working Memory
Writing is constrained by working memory, or the ability to
hold information in mind (Swanson & Berninger, 1996). To
write successfully, one must put thoughts into words and
sentences while using correct phonological, orthographic,
and syntactic rules (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003).
Researchers found that working memory actually predicts
writing quality and productivity (Kim, Al Otaiba, et al.,
2015; Swanson & Berninger, 1996). Kim and Schatschneider
(2017) concluded that while working memory is directly
related to individual writing skills (e.g., spelling, grammar),
when writing skills are combined, working memory is no
longer directly related to writing proficiency. The relation-
ship between working memory and writing may be more
indirect than previously thought. Taken together, oral lan-
guage and working memory influence writing proficiency
for young students and should be considered when design-
ing writing interventions.
Writing of Students With and At Risk
for Learning Disabilities (LDs)
Students in early elementary grades are still developing
written language skills, and LDs in writing may not mani-
fest clearly until later grades when the mismatch between
higher writing expectations and student performance is
evident. However, young students can demonstrate defi-
cits in skills that are predictive or related to later writing
proficiency. Young writers with or at risk for LD often
demonstrate weak phonological and orthographic knowl-
edge, which manifests as poor spelling and handwriting
(Graham et al., 2013). Students may also have deficits in
working memory, which, coupled with transcription dif-
ficulty, means they frequently spend their cognitive
resources on the transcription task, leaving fewer
resources for higher order tasks like organization, sen-
tence construction, and revising (Kim et al., 2014). In
addition, students with or at risk for LD often experience
difficulty with morphology of words, which further
affects spelling and connected writing (Apel et al., 2012).
Overall, struggling writers typically produce shorter, less
complex, and lower quality writing compared with peers
(Graham et al., 2013). One avenue for remediation is
morphological awareness instruction.
Allen and Lembke 3
Differential Effects of Morphological
Interventions on Literacy Outcomes
Five literature reviews (Bowers et al., 2010; Carlisle, 2010;
Goodwin & Ahn, 2010, 2013; Reed, 2008) investigated the
effect of morphological instruction on literacy outcomes.
Studies used instructional strategies like teaching morpho-
logical forms in oral and written words through listening
comprehension (e.g., orally identifying morphemes in spo-
ken words and sentences), word discrimination (e.g., identi-
fying which word has a target affix), and word building
exercises (e.g., attach prefixes and suffixes to base words).
Morphological awareness interventions had a significant
effect on word spelling (d = .20–.49), word reading (d =
.41–.79), oral vocabulary (d = .34–.40), and reading compre-
hension (d = .24) for students in Grades preK–12 (Bowers
et al., 2010; Carlisle, 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010, 2013;
Reed, 2008). Several specific studies are worth noting. Nunes
et al. (2003) found that students in Grades 2 to 3 demon-
strated gains in spelling only when provided practice oppor-
tunities to write words they learned. In addition, McCutchen
et al. (2013) found that fifth graders in a morphological inter-
vention used significantly more morphologically complex
words when combining sentences (d = 1.21) and when writ-
ing extended response essays (d = .89). The only study to
find no effect on spelling or reading outcomes was Parel
(2006), who notes that the effectiveness of the intervention
was likely limited due to scheduling constraints.
Certain subgroups of students appear to derive greater ben-
efit from morphological awareness instruction. Specifically,
larger effect sizes were found for students in early elementary
grades (preK–2) for skills like identifying morphemes
(d = .41–2.58), word reading (d = .28–.81), word spelling
(d = .57–.2.08), and reading comprehension (d = .52–.1.49;
Bowers et al., 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2013). Larger effect
sizes were also noted for the previously mentioned skills for
students classified as low or struggling readers (d = .35–.99),
having a LD in reading (d = .17–.37), or a language impair-
ment (d = .77; Bowers et al., 2010; Goodwin & Ahn,
2010, 2013; Reed, 2008). Interventions included explicit
instruction in identifying base words and affixes, rules for
combining morphemes into words, and morphosyntactic
spelling rules in activities like identifying affixes in spo-
ken and written words, orally “chunking” multisyllabic
words containing affixes, and building new words using
target affixes orally and in writing. Sessions were usually
25 to 45 min in length for 9 to 20 weeks. It appears
younger and poorer performing readers gain more from
explicit morphological instruction than their older and
higher achieving peers.
Recent studies echo the results of these literature reviews.
Morphological intervention positively impacted morpheme
knowledge (d = .41–2.58), word spelling (d = .65–2.08),
word reading (d = .21–.81), and reading comprehension
(d = .52–.1.49) in Grades K–3 using activities similar to
those previously described (Apel et al., 2013; Apel & Diehm,
2014; Brimo, 2016; Devonshire et al., 2013; Good et al.,
2015; Wolter & Dilworth, 2013). The results across morpho-
logical awareness studies suggest that (a) morphological
instruction can positively affect word-level spelling and read-
ing, (b) students in Grades K–2 and struggling learners derive
an even greater benefit from morphological interventions than
peers, and (c) when measuring writing outcomes, it is critical
to incorporate instruction and practice opportunities for writ-
ing with morphological targets. Despite the promising results
cited here, there is a general lack of research conducted in
morphological awareness instruction in early elementary
grades for students at risk for LD. Less than half the studies in
the reviews cited above included participants in Grades K–3
and most were conducted across multiple later grades (e.g.,
Grades 3–7). Further research is needed to investigate the
potential of morphological instruction as a method for improv-
ing the writing of students with or at risk for LD.
Study Purpose
Morphological awareness interventions can have a positive
effect on word spelling and reading, but to date, no studies
on morphological awareness have included connected writ-
ing as an outcome measure in the early elementary grades.
This study expands on the existing literature by measuring
the effect of a morphological awareness intervention on
spelling and sentence writing in early elementary grades
while also measuring oral language and working memory.
We hypothesize that an intervention targeting morphologi-
cal skills would result in improved spelling accuracy in
words and sentences, and improved construction of written
sentences for students with or at risk for LDs in writing, but
effects may be constrained by participants’ oral language
and working memory. The research questions are the fol-
lowing: (a) What are the effects of a morphological aware-
ness intervention on spelling and writing outcomes for
students with or at risk for LD in writing? and (b) What
student-level variables predict growth on spelling and writ-
ing outcome measures?
This study is an exploratory, underpowered randomized
control trial. Because writing is an understudied area and
educators generally feel unprepared to teach writing (Cutler
& Graham, 2008), it is necessary to investigate applications
and future directions of writing intervention research. The
effect sizes and implications for intervention feasibility
from this study will be discussed in depth, regardless of the
statistical significance of the findings.
Method
Participants and Setting
The study was conducted in one elementary school serv-
ing Grades 2 to 5 in a Midwestern district in a small city.
4 Learning Disability Quarterly 00(0)
The school was chosen as a convenience sample. During
the 2014–2015 academic year, the school reported enroll-
ment as 417 students, 93% White, 38% eligible for free/
reduced lunch, and 8% receiving special education ser-
vices (state average special education rate 12.7%).
Participants were second-grade (n = 17) and third-grade
(n = 10) students. One second-grade student in the inter-
vention condition moved away before posttesting was
complete, for a final count of 26 students (attrition rate
4%). The final participant sample was 46% female, 89%
White, 7% Latino, 50% free/reduced lunch eligible, and
19% received special education services. For students
receiving special education, diagnoses were 60% lan-
guage impairment, 20% mild intellectual disability, and
20% other health impairment. No students were desig-
nated as English learners.
Although no participants were officially diagnosed
with a LD, they all demonstrated difficulties in written
language (see screening procedures below) and could rea-
sonably be considered “at risk” for a LD in writing. In
addition, participants were relatively young (Grades 2–3)
and LD, particularly in writing, is often diagnosed in later
grades when writing expectations are higher and difficul-
ties become more obvious (Coker et al., 2017). Finally,
the school as a whole had a relatively low rate of special
education diagnoses, so it was challenging to find low
performing young students with the LD label. Given the
exploratory nature of the study, there are still important
applications to be examined for use with students with or
at risk for LD in writing.
Participants were identified using a two-gate screening
system. All students in Grades 2 to 3 (N = 224; Grade 2:
117, Grade 3: 107) across 11 classrooms were first screened
using a sentence writing picture-word Curriculum-Based
Measurement task (CBM-W). Students who fell below the
25th percentile using norms developed from a previous
study (Allen et al., 2019) were identified for the second
round of screening. Procedures for norm development are
available upon request.
Students who met the first round of screening criteria
with CBM-W (n = 74) were given the second screener,
the Spelling and Writing Samples subtests of the
Woodcock–Johnson Test of Achievement, Third Edition
(WJ-III ACH; Woodcock et al., 2007). Students who also
fell below the 25th percentile on either WJ-III ACH sub-
test using age norms were eligible to participate in the
study (n = 26 after attrition). Participants in the study
were then given the Digit Span and Letter-Number
Sequencing subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Weschler, 2003) as a
working memory covariate measure, and the Following
Directions subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals, Fifth Edition (CELF-V; Semel et al., 2013)
as a language covariate measure.
Study Design
We conducted a randomized control trial and randomly
assigned participants to intervention (n = 13) and com-
parison conditions (n = 13), blocking on grade level.
Participants were assessed pre- and postintervention and
were administered twice-weekly progress monitoring
CBM-W assessments.
Measures
Screening and progress monitoring CBM-W.  Each CBM-W
consisted of 12 pictures of common objects and actions
paired with written words (e.g., “paper,” “walk,”). During
administration, the first author read each CBM-W item
aloud while students followed along. Students were
instructed to “Write one sentence for each picture in your
packet” and complete as many sentences as they could in
3 min. For screening, one form of the CBM-W was group-
administered to students in their classrooms 4 weeks pre-
intervention. For progress monitoring, students were
given a different CBM-W form twice a week for 5 weeks.
Participants were given one final CBM-W 4 weeks pos-
tintervention for a total of 12 data points. All CBM-W
forms were given by the first author. Probes were scored
with correct word sequences (CWS, two adjacent words
spelled and used correctly), which demonstrate evidence
of reliability (r ≥ .70) and criterion validity (r ≥ .60) in
Grades 2 to 3 (Lembke et al., 2003; Videen et al., 1982).
Picture-word demonstrates evidence of sensitivity to
growth within (Parker et al., 2011) and across elementary
grades (McMaster et al., 2011). Total and mean CWS
were used to score all CBM-W. Mean CWS allows for
fairer assessment of slow writers as productivity is not a
factor (Lembke et al., 2003).
Spelling and writing. All students were given the Spelling
and Writing Samples subtests of the WJ-III ACH (Wood-
cock et al., 2007). The Spelling subtest evaluated students’
ability to spell single words from dictation. The Writing
Samples subtest assessed students’ ability to write in
response to a picture or verbal prompt. Test items start with
one-word responses and progress to multisentence
responses. Both subtests were given by the first author 4
weeks pre- and postintervention. The subtests demonstrated
evidence of sufficient reliability (Spelling subtest: r = .87,
Writing Samples subtest: r = .90) and criterion-related
validity with standardized writing tests (r = .57–.77; Wood-
cock et al., 2007) and with CBM-W (r ≥ .60; Ritchey &
Coker, 2014). On the Spelling subtest, total and mean cor-
rect letter sequences (CLSs) was calculated (adjacent letters
correctly placed in a word, Deno et al., 1980) to more pre-
cisely measure the effect of the intervention on student
spelling.
Allen and Lembke 5
Working memory. The Digit Span and Letter and Number
Sequencing subtests of the WISC-IV (Weschler, 2003) were
used to measure working memory (reliability: .89, criterion
validity: .72). The Digit Span subtest required students to
repeat sequences of numbers forward and backward. The
Letter and Number Sequencing subtest required students to
repeat a mixed series of letters and numbers (e.g., 1-A-B).
The WISC-IV subtests were administered to participants by
the first author and two trained doctoral students 2 weeks
before the intervention. The doctoral students were trained
in test administration and scoring by the first author, a
speech–language pathologist with experience with both
assessments. The doctoral students were blind to study con-
ditions of the participants and reached 100% fidelity of
administration on 20% of sessions as measured by a 20-item
observational checklist (available upon request).
Receptive language.  The Following Directions subtest of the
CELF-V (Semel et al., 2013) measures receptive semantic
and syntactic abilities (reliability: .83–.90; criterion valid-
ity: .78–.91). It was given as a covariate measure to account
for maturational growth in language skills not explicitly
taught during the intervention to more precisely capture
intervention effects. Students should demonstrate some
natural language growth in semantics and syntax, but not
significantly so and not as a result of the intervention (Apel
et al., 2013). The Following Directions subtest required stu-
dents to listen to oral directions and point to pictures in a
specific order. We chose to not directly assess oral morpho-
logical skills given that the focus of the study was to deter-
mine intervention effects on written language outcomes.
The CELF-V subtest was administered 2 weeks before and
4 weeks after the intervention by the first author and two-
trained doctoral students. The doctoral students reached
100% fidelity of administration on 20% of sessions as mea-
sured by a 20-item observational checklist (available upon
request).
Inter-rater reliability (IRR) of scoring.  IRR of scoring was con-
ducted on 20% of each assessment with a goal of at least
90% agreement across scorers. WJ-III ACH and CBM-W
were originally scored by the first author. IRR was con-
ducted with an expert scorer who used WJ-III ACH in her
work as a school psychologist and CBM-W as a project
coordinator for the larger screening study from which the
CBM-W forms were drawn (Allen et al., 2019). The expert
scorer was blind to study conditions of participants. IRR
reached 100% on the CBM-W and WJ-III ACH Spelling,
and 85% on WJ-III ACH Writing Samples. First author
retrained on scoring Writing Samples with the expert scorer
and reached 90%.
Teacher questionnaire.  All participating classroom teachers in
both conditions (n = 9) completed a 23-item questionnaire
about what practices they used during writing instruction
(adapted from Cutler & Graham, 2008). Teachers com-
pleted 19 items about time spent on writing and spelling
instruction, in various student groupings (e.g., whole
group, small group) and frequency of use of evidence-
based practices (e.g., graphic organizers and student goal-
setting). Four open-ended questions asked teachers to
describe their approach to teaching writing. Although there
were no questions asked about “morphological awareness”
activities specifically, which is a weakness of the study,
questions were asked about practices related to the study
intervention (e.g., teaching word families and prefixes/suf-
fixes and sentence writing). Future studies should incorpo-
rate questionnaires with more explicit language around
morphological awareness and specific morphological
activities and teaching strategies.
All participating teachers delivered their regular class-
room reading and writing instruction to all student partici-
pants during the study. Students in the intervention condition
received the study intervention during a 25-min school-
wide intervention block delivered by the research team.
Students in the comparison condition received a supple-
mental intervention in reading or mathematics during the
same school-wide intervention block delivered by school
staff. We were unable to ascertain what supplemental inter-
ventions were being delivered to the comparison group,
which is a weakness of the study. Because all participants,
regardless of condition, continued to receive their regular
classroom reading and writing instruction from their class-
room teachers throughout the duration of the study, the
teacher questionnaire was used to summarize writing
instruction in participating classrooms and to detect any dif-
ferences in instruction across experimental groups or grade
levels that may have affected results.
Intervention Description and Procedures
The intervention was provided by the first author and seven-
trained graduate students in special education 4 to 5 times
per week during the school-wide intervention block in
groups of two to five students for 25 min per session for 5
weeks. Due to school scheduling constraints, Grade 2 stu-
dents received the intervention 5 times per week and Grade
3 students received it 4 times per week. However, because
of unexpected school cancelations, groups differed only by
one total session. Any student who was absent did not
receive makeup instruction. Average attendance across stu-
dents was 93%.
The intervention was delivered in two groups during
each grade level’s intervention block and participants were
randomly assigned to their instructional group. Third grade
(n = 5) had a group of two and a group of three while sec-
ond grade (originally n = 9) had a group of five and a group
of four. The two-group structure was used in both grades for
6 Learning Disability Quarterly 00(0)
consistency and is a potential limitation of the study. To
account for teacher effects, all lesson plans were scripted
and instructors alternated groups to prevent students from
having the same instructor each day. For logistical reasons,
student groups remained the same throughout the interven-
tion. One lesson target (e.g., plural “-s”) was taught over 2
days, with a review session after every two lessons.
Intervention activities. Each session included four activities
(Apel & Diehm, 2014): (a) listening activity, (b) word sort, (c)
“say it another way,” and (d) affix writing book. The listening
activity required students to give a “thumbs up” when they
heard the target affix read aloud in a short story. In word sort,
students were presented with a word card and were told to
“say it, spell it, say it again” and sort the cards according to
whether the word had the target affix. Words were paired with
pictures only during Lessons 1 to 3. During “say it another
way,” instructors presented a written base word and asked the
question, “How can I say [BLANK] another way?” Students
orally responded with a modified word using the target affix
(e.g., “dogs”) and wrote the affix next to the base word. The
affix book was a cumulative booklet where students circled
words containing the target affix in a list, orally defined the
words, and wrote sentences with the words. Instructors pro-
vided students with feedback and error correction through
verbal prompts to spell and use target words correctly.
Order of lessons. The order of affixes taught followed the
developmental progression of morpheme acquisition and
included derivational and inflectional morphemes (Apel &
Diehm, 2014). Affixes were taught in spoken and written
forms in the following order: plural -s, third person -s, past
tense -ed, present progressive -ing, prefix un-, prefix re-,
suffix -er (person), suffix -ly, and suffix -er/-est (compari-
son). Base words were taken from the Dolch (1936) word
lists. None of the words used on the assessments were
directly taught during the intervention.
Fidelity of intervention implementation.  Fidelity of implemen-
tation was recorded through direct observation with a
20-item checklist (e.g., modeling skills, providing immedi-
ate corrective feedback) by the authors. Intervention ses-
sions (22%) were observed for fidelity and instructors
achieved a mean 97% fidelity (range 89%–100%).
Comparison Group Instruction
Students in the comparison group were receiving supple-
mental interventions in either reading or mathematics dur-
ing the school-wide intervention block based on their
individual needs identified by the school. Results from the
teacher questionnaire about classroom instruction indicated
there was no published writing curriculum being followed in
either grade or experimental group during regular literacy
instruction. To detect any significant differences in class-
room writing instruction between experimental groups, a
series of independent samples t-tests were used with a
Bonferroni correction (α = .05/19 = .003) on the 19
numerical questionnaire items. No statistically significant
differences were found. All teachers reported using both a
“process-based” approach (e.g., students guided through
planning, writing, and editing) and a “skills-based”
approach (e.g., students taught discrete skills). All teachers
reported teaching spelling using word families or letter–
sound correspondence. Students in both groups received an
average of 30 min per day of writing instruction. Teachers
reported using “mini-lessons” on specific skills, teacher–
student conferences, and providing writing models daily to
weekly. Other instructional practices such as peer confer-
ences and graphic organizers were used monthly or less
often. Full questionnaire results are available upon request.
Data Analysis
All data were entered into SPSS v. 24.0 and hierarchical
linear model(ing) (HLM) 7 for analyses. Descriptive statis-
tics (mean, SD, range, skewness, and kurtosis) were calcu-
lated for all measures. Age-normed standardized scores
were used for all norm-referenced tests. To answer the first
research question, what are the effects of a morphological
awareness intervention, a series of univariate analyses of
covariance (ANCOVAs) was conducted to determine
between-group differences on the outcome measures.
Covariate measures were CELF-V Following Directions
subtest and WISC-IV Working Memory Index. Given the
number of individual comparisons being made a Bonferroni
correction was used to account for Type I error (.05/6 =
.008). Effect sizes (Hedges’ g; M1–M2/SDpooled) were calcu-
lated to determine the magnitude of effect of the interven-
tion and were interpreted using Cohen’s (1988) standards
(small 0.2, medium 0.5, large .80).
To answer the second research question, what student-
level variables predict growth, an HLM growth curve analysis
was used to determine if students’ rate of growth on CBM-W
was significantly different from zero and what student-level
variables (e.g., working memory, receptive language) may
have shaped growth rates. HLM is a method used in previous
research when investigating CBM-W slopes (McMaster et al.,
2011). Test data observations (Level 1) were nested within
students (Level 2) and were collected biweekly during the
duration of the intervention. Two models were used to inves-
tigate growth and differences between students.
Results
Descriptive Data
Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. Visual
inspection of the data and skewness and kurtosis values
Allen and Lembke 7

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Outcome and Covariate Measures.

Intervention (n = 13) Comparison (n = 13)

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Measure M (SD) Range M (SD) Range M (SD) Range M (SD) Range

WJ-III ACH Spelling 78.8 (7.0) 65–89 83.5 (6.8) 70–92 85.2 (6.0) 76–97 87.5 (6.1) 77–100
Total CLS 61.5 (20.4) 27–91 72.6 (21.0) 45–107 71.3 (23.6) 33–119 81.2 (17.9) 46–105
Mean CLS 4.0 (0.5) 2.8–4.6 4.0 (0.4) 3.3–4.4 3.5 (0.4) 2.9–4.3 3.7 (0.4) 3–4.3
WJ-III ACH Writing 94.5 (11.7) 74–118 94.2 (14.0) 63–114 92.5 (7.0) 77–102 87.6 (11.4) 66–109
CBM-W Total CWS 17.2 (7.6) 2–31 25.2 (12.1) 4–43 15.5 (6.8) 4–30 27.5 (10.7) 12–47
Mean CWS 3.5 (1.4) 1.0–5.5 3.5 (1.2) 1.3–6 4.1 (1.2) 2.2–6.3 4.1 (1.1) 2.3–6
CELF-V 8.0 (2.1) 4–11 8.5 (3.9) 2–15 8.5 (2.5) 4–11 8.7 (2.7) 3–12
WISC-IV 84.3 (13.1) 62–110 n/a n/a 85.2 (11.3) 65–104 n/a n/a

Note. Age-normed standardized scores were used for all standardized tests (WJ-III ACH, CELF-V, and WISC-IV). WJ-III ACH = Woodcock–Johnson
Tests of Achievement, Third Edition; CLS = correct letter sequences; CBM-W = curriculum-based measurement in writing; CWS = correct word
sequences; CELF-V = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fifth Edition; WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition
(Working Memory Index).

indicated the data were approximately normally distrib-
uted. Collinearity of the outcome and covariate measures
was calculated with Pearson product–moment correla-
tion. Almost all coefficients were significant (p < .05)
and were small to moderate (p = .11–.65). Due to space
constraints, skewness, kurtosis, and collinearity values
are available upon request.
At pretest, the groups were statistically significantly dif-
ferent on WJ-III ACH Spelling t(24) = 2.47, p = .02; there-
fore pretest WJ-III ACH Spelling total scores were used as
a covariate in the ANCOVAs along with language and
memory scores. Groups were not statistically significantly
different on any other measure. Students with special edu-
cation diagnoses were distributed equally across interven-
tion and comparison groups through random assignment.
Both groups increased their mean scores from pre- to post-
test on every measure except the WJ-III ACH Writing
Samples subtest, where the comparison group decreased
from pre to post (see Table 1). Neither group grew signifi-
cantly on the CELF-V from pre- to posttest, intervention:
t(12) = −.49, p = .64; comparison: t(13) = −.30, p = .77.
Intervention Effects
A series of ANCOVAs was used with a Bonferroni correc-
tion (.05/6 = .008) to determine if the intervention had an
effect on each of the six spelling and writing outcome mea-
sures for students in the intervention condition (see Table 2).
Levene’s test of equality of variances was not significant for
any of the measures, indicating the assumption of equality of
variances was met (p < .05). In short, the intervention did
not have a significant effect on any of the outcome measures
after controlling for baseline receptive language, working
memory, and spelling ability (see Table 2; all p > .05).
Although not statistically significant, there were medium- to
large-positive effects found on the WJ-III ACH Spelling
subtest in mean CLS (g = .75) and on the WJ-III ACH
Writing Samples subtest (g = .52). Negative effect sizes
were found for the WJ-III ACH Spelling subtest total score
(g = −.60), total CLS score (g = −0.44), and CBM-W total
CWS (g = −0.20) and mean CWS (g = −0.52). These nega-
tive effects indicate that the comparison group outscored the
intervention group at posttest on these measures.
HLM Growth Modeling
Unconditional model. All HLM results are in Table 3. An
unconditional growth model was analyzed first with time
(testing occasion) as the only variable at Level-1 and CWS
pretest score as the outcome variable. Deviance testing indi-
cated that a random slopes model was more appropriate
than a fixed slopes model (χ2 = 8.01, df = 2, p = .001). The
linear slope model resulted in a better fit over an intercept-
only model, χ2 = 7.30 (2), p = .02. Next, a quadratic term
was added to the model to see if any growth was nonlinear.
Deviance testing indicated that random slopes were more
appropriate than fixed slopes for this model as well (χ2 =
22.50, df = 5, p = .001). The addition of a quadratic term
resulted in a better fit over the linear slope model (χ2 =
22.50, df = 5, p = .001). Because the quadratic term was
significant, it was retained in the model. Students varied
significantly in their total CWS pretest scores (intercepts)
before the intervention (r0 = 53.50, p = .002). Linear slope
(2.96 CWS per testing occasion or 5.92 CWS per week; p =
.001) and nonlinear (quadratic) acceleration rate (−.17 CWS
per testing occasion or −.34 CWS per week; p = .002) were
significantly different from zero.
Conditional model. Several variables were added to the
model as Level-2 predictors: intervention group (coded as
8 Learning Disability Quarterly 00(0)

Table 2.  ANCOVA Results.

Levene’s testa
Type III
Measure (Posttest) F p Sum of Squares F p Hedges’ g
WJ-III ACH Spelling 1.80 .19 0.04 0.002 .97 −0.60
Total CLS 4.06 .06 4.00 0.02 .90 −0.44
Mean CLS 0.50 .49 0.18 1.10 .31 0.75
WJ-III ACH Writing Samples 1.82 .19 568.92 4.31 .05 0.52
CBM-W Total CWS 0.40 .53 7.76 0.07 .80 −0.20
Mean CWS 0.49 .49 0.39 0.29 .60 −0.52

Note. WJ-III ACH = Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition; CLS = correct letter sequences; CBM-W = curriculum-based
measurement in writing; CWS = correct word sequences.
a
df1 = 1, df2 = 24.

Table 3.  HLM Growth Curve Analysis Results.

Coefficients

Variables Unconditional Conditional

Fixed Effects
  Intercept (π0)
   Mean Pretest CWS (β00) 16.67*** 11.56***
  Mean Pretest × Grade (β01) — 13.78***
  Linear Slope (π1)
   Mean Linear Growth Rate (β10) 2.83*** 2.83***
   Mean Growth Rate × Pretest WJ-III ACH Spelling (β11) — 0.20***
  Nonlinear Growth (π2)
   Mean Quadratic Growth Rate (β20) −0.16** −0.14**
   Mean Growth Rate × Grade (β21) — −0.06**
  Mean Growth × Pretest WJ-III ACH Spelling (β22) — −0.01**
Random Effects
  Mean Pretest CWS Error (r0i) 55.73** 3.32
  Mean Linear Slope Error (r1i) 5.33** 1.88*
  Mean Non-linear Growth Error (r2i) 0.03* 0.14*
Proportion of Variance
  Level 1 Within Student (R12) — .003
  Level 2 Between Student (R22) — .80

Note. HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; CWS = correct word sequences; WJ-III ACH = Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

0 = comparison group, 1 = intervention group), working Level-2 model

memory score, oral language pretest score, WJ-III ACH
Spelling and Writing Samples pretest scores, and grade
level (coded as 0 = second grade, 1 = third grade). Because
the study sample was rather homogeneous, demographic
variables were not used as predictors. Each predictor that
was not significant was removed from the model one at a
time based on which had the highest p-value. The final
conditional model was as follows:
Level-1 model
CBMti = π0i + π1i*(TIMEti) +
(within-student): 
π2i*(TIME2ti) + eti
(between students): π0i = β00 + β01*(GRADEi) + r0i
   π1i = β10 + β11*(PREWJSi) + r1i
    π2i = β20 + β21*(GRADEi) +
β22*(PREWJSi) + r2i
Participation in the intervention did not predict growth
on the CBM-W task, which also reflects the ANCOVA
results. The intervention did not have a significant effect on
participant performance. Rather, linear slopes were signifi-
cantly predicted by pretest WJ-III ACH Spelling subtest
score and nonlinear acceleration rate was predicted by
grade-level and pretest Spelling. Younger students and
Allen and Lembke 9
poorer spellers initially scored lower but grew faster than
their peers in the study. For linear slope, a one-unit increase
in Spelling score was associated with a .38 increase in CWS
per week (p = .02). For nonlinear growth, one-unit increases
in grade and Spelling score resulted in statistically signifi-
cant although negligible increases in CWS (see Table 3).
The HLM results do not provide any further support for the
effectiveness of the intervention.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine the effective-
ness of a morphological awareness intervention on the writ-
ing outcomes of students in Grades 2 to 3 at risk for LD in
writing. First, findings are discussed in terms of partici-
pants’ spelling and writing performance, then the growth
patterns evident in the CBM-W progress monitoring data,
then practical applications, limitations of the study, and
future directions.
Spelling Performance
Although previous research has illustrated that morphologi-
cal awareness instruction can produce large, positive gains
in spelling (Apel et al., 2013; Apel & Diehm, 2014;
Devonshire et al., 2013; Wolter & Dilworth, 2013), this
study did not detect any significant between-group differ-
ences on the WJ-III ACH Spelling subtest, even after con-
trolling for pretest Spelling scores. Although the effects on
total score and total CLS were negative, a moderate positive
effect was found for mean CLS (g = .75). Upon closer
inspection, this is likely because the comparison group
decreased in mean CLS from pre- to posttest rather than the
intervention having a large effect on the experimental
group’s spelling. It is possible that any potential gains in
spelling from the intervention were attenuated when con-
trolling for working memory and receptive language in the
ANCOVA. Previous research has shown that spelling and
writing ability is influenced by oral language (Kim et al.,
2011, 2014, 2018) and working memory, either directly or
indirectly (Kim & Schatschneider, 2017). No previous mor-
phological intervention studies measured working memory
and oral language together; had previous studies controlled
for either of these constructs, the impact of the interventions
on spelling could have been smaller.
Another potential influence on the lack of significant
results is the distal nature of the outcome measure. The
WJ-III ACH Spelling subtest may not have been sensitive
enough to detect growth in morphological awareness specifi-
cally. Even if students improved their morphological spelling
knowledge, they may not have been able to transfer that
knowledge in a way that was detected by the WJ-III ACH
Spelling subtest or the CLS scoring metric. Other researchers
have found that even when participants improved their
spelling and identification of morphological spelling rules
and strategies, they did not always spontaneously utilize or
transfer those strategies to other types of words (Devonshire
et al., 2013; Wolter & Dilworth, 2013).
Writing Performance
Although previous work in the area of morphological
instruction and writing is scant, the lack of significant
growth on the writing measures in this study is in conflict
with one previous study that found positive effects of mor-
phological awareness instruction on sentence writing
(McCutchen et al., 2013). Although this study attempted to
reflect McCutchen et al.’s findings by using sentence writ-
ing practice with the morphological targets in each lesson,
the intervention may not have been explicit or powerful
enough to obtain measurable effects in 5 weeks. The writing
instruction portion of the intervention likely needed to be
the focus of each lesson to produce detectable performance
gains on the writing measures. A moderate positive effect
was found on the Writing Samples subtest (g = .52), how-
ever, similar to the Spelling subtest, this is likely because
the comparison students decreased from pre- to posttest
rather than the intervention having a significant effect on
the performance of the experimental students. In addition,
the McCutchen et al. (2013) study was with fifth graders; it
may be necessary when working with younger at-risk stu-
dents who are still developing basic writing skills to spend
more time on the sentence writing aspect rather than the
activities devoted to identifying morphological targets in
oral and written language.
The lack of significant growth on the WJ-III ACH
Writing Samples subtest could also be due to the way the
subtest was administered and scored. The Writing Samples
subtest did not reward or penalize spelling, capitalization,
or punctuation on most of the test items, so even if stu-
dents improved in these skills as a result of the interven-
tion, this would not be reflected in their Writing Samples
scores. In addition, the Writing Samples subtest required
students to write to a specific prompt or idea, sometimes
with multiple sentences, whereas the intervention activi-
ties required students use a target word while writing sin-
gle sentences about a topic of their choice, so it could be
that the Writing Samples tasks were more difficult than or
not aligned closely enough with the intervention activities
and therefore student growth was not detected. Similar to
the Spelling subtest, maybe the Writing Samples subtest is
not an adequate measure to capture increased morphologi-
cal knowledge and does not provide adequate opportuni-
ties for students to apply their morphological knowledge
to writing.
It is important to acknowledge the lack of information
we have about the supplemental intervention the compari-
son group students were receiving during the school-wide
10 Learning Disability Quarterly 00(0)
intervention block. On the surface, an unknown interven-
tion in literacy for the comparison group could possibly
influence the lack of significant results. However, when
looking at the descriptive data, the comparison group’s
mean score on the WJ-III ACH Writing Samples subtest
decreased from pre- to posttest, so it is unlikely the com-
parison students were receiving a highly effective writing
intervention during the study.
Growth in Writing
As indicated by our previous analyses, the intervention did
not influence student growth on the CBM-W task. Clearly,
if the intervention did not affect static performance at post-
test, it will not affect growth either. However, there are
aspects of the modeling results worth exploring. The HLM
analysis indicated that students did grow on CBM-W over
the 12 progress monitoring data points, but only due to a
combination of their grade (or rather, their maturity and
school experience) and baseline spelling ability, which
makes sense as we would expect students with more school
experience and better spelling to perform higher initially,
and younger and poorer performing students have more
room to grow. Interestingly, working memory and oral lan-
guage were not related to the growth rates of the sample,
which is in conflict with some previous studies showing
connections between early writing, oral language (Kim
et al., 2018), and working memory (Kim & Schatschneider,
2017), but reflects past work showing that language ability
did not influence writing growth rates (Coker, 2006; Kim,
Al Otaiba, et al., 2015). The conflicting results could be due
to the fact that previous studies measured expressive oral
vocabulary and grammatical knowledge (Kim et al., 2018),
whereas this study only measured receptive oral semantic
and syntactic knowledge.
In terms of working memory, Kim and Schatschneider
(2017) concluded that after accounting for oral language
and transcription skills, working memory had a more indi-
rect relationship to writing proficiency than previously
thought. Perhaps we did not find working memory to have
an impact on growth rates because either working memory
may not directly affect writing growth or including a lan-
guage measure attenuates the influence of working memory
on writing growth. Although the modeling results in this
study do not provide evidence of the effectiveness of the
intervention, they contribute to our knowledge of how
spelling, writing, and maturity may intersect.
Practical Applications
As stated previously, the lack of significant results could be
due to the way the intervention was designed and deliv-
ered. Previous research has shown it is important to extend
word-level morphological instruction to the sentence level
of language to help students apply their morphological
knowledge to their writing (Devonshire et al., 2013;
McCutchen et al., 2013). To reflect previous morphologi-
cal awareness interventions, we devoted time in our les-
sons to morpheme identification, discrimination, and word
building to support spelling, and sentence writing practice
to support writing, but sentence construction likely needed
to be taught more explicitly. The interventionists, as part of
the lesson scripts, provided models for sentences that used
the target words from each lesson, but explicit instruction
in syntax, sentence types, and building sentence complex-
ity was not a focus. Particularly for young at-risk students,
the process for how to construct a sentence from scratch is
important and was probably not adequately addressed in
the current intervention. Although modeling writing is an
important evidence-based practice (Cutler & Graham,
2008), a more direct approach to sentence writing could
have produced more significant results.
In addition, longer sessions may be needed to adequately
address both spelling and sentence writing, or perhaps
improved spelling and sentence writing should be treated as
two separate goals within future iterations. The assumption
in this study was that morphological instruction would
improve word spelling (e.g., Nunes et al., 2003). We also
assumed that students would transfer that improved spelling
into their sentences and that the sentence writing practice
would boost their overall writing performance (e.g.,
McCutchen et al., 2013). It could be that in a 25-min ses-
sion, there is not enough time to devote to each goal.
Previous morphological intervention studies were delivered
for at least 9 weeks in 25- to 45-min sessions (e.g., Apel
et al., 2013; Bowers et al., 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2013), so
longer sessions may be needed to address both spelling
words and writing sentences with multimorphemic words.
Alternatively, perhaps two versions of the intervention
could be created, with one focusing on word spelling as a
foundational piece and a more advanced version focusing
on sentence writing.
Although not directly assessed in this study, the inter-
vention appeared to be feasible to implement. The trained
graduate student instructors achieved high fidelity of imple-
mentation after a brief training. It is likely that other educa-
tors would be able to incorporate the intervention activities,
or the lessons in their entirety, into their classroom instruc-
tion, particularly if the lessons are scripted. We know that
teachers often feel underprepared to teach writing and often
do not spend much time during the school day addressing
writing (Cutler & Graham, 2008), so a scripted and struc-
tured set of lessons may be a welcome addition to many
elementary classrooms. The interventions can also be
adapted and modified to meet the needs of various types of
students; for example, specific targets could be eliminated
or added to the lesson structure, and activities could be sim-
plified (e.g., fewer items, more modeling) or enhanced
Allen and Lembke 11
(e.g., paragraph writing, more challenging targets) for stu-
dents at different ability levels.
Limitations and Future Directions
The most notable limitation of this study was the small,
homogeneous sample (n = 26) and the short intervention
duration (5 weeks) with varying group sizes (two to five
students each). The participating school requested that the
intervention be shortened to 5 weeks in order for the study
to be completed before the state high-stakes testing win-
dow opened. In addition, the school intervention blocks
were scheduled differently between the two grade levels,
which necessitated varying group sizes. It is possible that
a larger, more diverse sample and a longer duration and a
more consistent schedule and groupings would produce a
larger effect on spelling and writing outcomes (Parel,
2006). Another limitation was the alignment of the mea-
sures to the intervention tasks. Although using standard-
ized assessments like the WJ-III ACH is important for
having a distal outcome measure with evidence of reliabil-
ity and validity, having researcher created assessments
that more precisely measure morphological knowledge in
spelling and writing tasks is important to pinpoint where
gains did or did not occur and to further refine the inter-
vention. Future iterations of the intervention might need to
spend more time on morphological instruction paired with
strategies for sentence construction using multimorphe-
mic words and less time spent on the identification and
discrimination portions of the lessons. Future iterations
could also incorporate teacher feedback and input into the
intervention design to better address the needs of educa-
tors and students with or at risk for LD in writing. Finally,
the lack of specific information on the supplemental read-
ing or mathematics interventions the comparison students
received during the school-wide intervention block is a
limitation. Although unlikely, it is possible that compari-
son students received some literacy-based intervention
during the study that improved their overall writing
performance.
Conclusion
There is a critical need to provide writing interventions to
struggling students, especially early in a child’s academic
career to prevent later failure. This study adds to the grow-
ing body of evidence that morphological awareness plays a
role in students’ ability to understand, spell, and use words
correctly in writing and that explicitly teaching morpho-
logical awareness can produce gains in spelling and writing.
Results indicated that teaching the morphological structure
of words alone is not enough to transfer to improved sen-
tence writing; instruction and practice with sentence con-
struction is a necessary component of improving student
writing. Students who struggle with written language early
on have the greatest potential for growth and need to start
receiving interventions as soon as possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Abigail A. Allen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5135-3709
References
Allen, A. A., Jung, P.-G., Poch, A. L., Brandes, D., Shin, J.,
Lembke, E. S., & McMaster, K. M. (2019). Technical ade-
quacy of curriculum-based measures in writing in grades
1–3. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10573
569.2019.1689211
Apel, K., Brimo, D., Diehm, E., & Apel, L. (2013). Morphological
awareness intervention with kindergartners and first- and sec-
ond-grade students from low socioeconomic status homes: A
feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 44(2), 161–173.
Apel, K., & Diehm, E. (2014). Morphological awareness inter-
vention with kindergarteners and first and second grade stu-
dents from low SES homes: A small efficacy study. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 47, 65–75.
Apel, K., & Werfel, K. (2014). Using morphological aware-
ness instruction to improve written language skills.
Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4),
251–260.
Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A. (2012).
Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second
and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25(6), 1283–
1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9317-8
Berninger, V., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expres-
sion disabilities through early and continuing assessment
and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems:
Research into practice. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S.
Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345–
363). Guilford.
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010).
The effects of morphological instruction on literacy
skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review
of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179. https://doi
.org/10.3102/0034654309359353
Brimo, D. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of a morphologi-
cal awareness intervention: A pilot study. Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 38(1), 35–45.
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological
awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review.
Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487.
12 Learning Disability Quarterly 00(0)
Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morpho-
logically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239–253.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural
sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
Coker, D. L. (2006). Impact of first-grade factors on the
growth and outcomes of urban schoolchildren’s primary-
grade writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3),
471–488.
Coker, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Uribe-Zarain, X., & Jennings, A. S.
(2017). An analysis of first-grade writing profiles and their
relationship to compositional quality. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 51(4), 336–350.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruc-
tion: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(4), 907–919.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Marston, D. (1980). Relationships
among simple measures of written expression and perfor-
mance on standardized achievement tests (No. IRLDRR-22).
Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of
Minnesota.
Devonshire, V., Morris, P., & Fluck, M. (2013). Spelling and reading
development: The effect of teaching children multiple levels of
representation in their orthography. Learning and Instruction,
25, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.007
Dolch, E. W. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. Elementary School
Journal, 36, 456–460.
Good, J. E., Lance, D. M., & Rainey, J. (2015). The effects of
morphological awareness training on reading, spelling, and
vocabulary skills. Communication Disorders Quarterly,
36(3), 142–151.
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morpholog-
ical interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children
with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2), 183–208.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-010-0041-x
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of mor-
phological interventions in English: Effects on literacy out-
comes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading,
17(4), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012
.689791
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing
of students with learning disabilities, meta-analysis of self-
regulated strategy development writing intervention studies,
and future directions: Redux. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris,
& S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities
(pp. 405–438). Guilford Press.
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(4),
752–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.752
Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Puranik,
C. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first-grade writ-
ten composition. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing
Research, 57(1), 199–211.
Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., Greulich,
L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componential skills of begin-
ning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(5), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lin-
dif.2011.06.004
Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., & Gatlin, B. (2015).
Toward an understanding of dimensions, predictors, and the
gender gap in written composition. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 107(1), 79–95.
Kim, Y.-S., Gatlin, B., Al Otaiba, S., & Wanzek, J. (2018).
Theorization and an empirical investigation of the compo-
nent-based and developmental text writing fluency construct.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(4), 320–335.
Kim, Y.-S., Puranik, C., & Al Otaiba, S. (2015). Developmental
trajectories in writing skills in first grade: Examining the
effects of SES and language and/or speech impairments. The
Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 593–613.
Kim, Y.-S., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Expanding the develop-
mental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model
of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational
Psychology, 109(1), 35–50.
Lembke, E., Deno, S. L., & Hall, K. (2003). Identifying an indica-
tor of growth in early writing proficiency for elementary school
students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3–4), 23–35.
McCutchen, D., & Stull, S. (2015). Morphological awareness and
children’s writing: Accuracy, error, and invention. Reading
and Writing, 28(2), 271–289.
McCutchen, D., Stull, S., Herrera, B. L., Lotas, S., & Evans, S.
(2013). Putting words to work: Effects of morphological instruc-
tion on children’s writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
47(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509969
McMaster, K. L., Du, X., Yeo, S., Deno, S. L., Parker, D., & Ellis,
T. (2011). Curriculum-based measures of beginning writing:
Technical features of the slope. Exceptional Children, 77(2),
185–206.
Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2014).
Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 3–12. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022219413509967
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s
report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools,
and Colleges. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work. . .or a ticket
out: A survey of business leaders. The College Board.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning morphologi-
cal and phonological spelling rules: An intervention study.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 289–307.
Parel, R. (2006). The impact of training in morphological analy-
sis on literacy in the primary grades. International Journal of
Learning, 13(1), 19–128.
Parker, D. C., McMaster, K. L., Medhanie, A., & Silberglitt, B.
(2011). Modeling early writing growth with curriculum-based
measures. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(4), 290–304.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehen-
sion. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions
and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K-12.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(1), 36–49.
Ritchey, K. D., & Coker, D. L., Jr. (2014). Identifying writing difficul-
ties in first grade: An investigation of writing and reading mea-
sures. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 54–65.
Rubin, H. (1988). Morphological knowledge and early writing
ability. Language and Speech, 31(4), 337–355.
Allen and Lembke 13
Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013). Clinical evalua-
tion of language fundamentals (5th ed.). The Psychological
Corporation.
Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences
in children’s working memory and writing skill. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 63(2), 358–385.
Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1996). Effects of morphology on
children’s spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 141–170.
Videen, J., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1982). Correct word
sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in ­written expres-
sion (No. IRLDRR-84). University of Minnesota, Institute
for Research on Learning Disabilities.
Weschler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th
ed.). The Psychological Corporation.
Wolter, J. A., & Dilworth, V. (2013). The effects of a multilin-
guistic morphological awareness approach for improving
language and literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
47(1), 76–85.
Wolter, J. A., Wood, A., & D’zatko, K. W. (2009). The influence
of morphological awareness on the literacy development of
first-grade children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 40(3), 286–298.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, F. A., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A.
(2007). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement (3rd ed.).
Riverside Publishing.