552018

research-article2014
LDXXXX10.1177/0022219414552018Journal of Learning DisabilitiesSumner et al.

Article
Journal of Learning Disabilities

The Influence of Spelling Ability on

2016, Vol. 49(3) 293­–304
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Vocabulary Choices When Writing sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219414552018

for Children With Dyslexia journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com

Emma Sumner, PhD1, Vincent Connelly, PhD2,

and Anna L. Barnett, PhD2

Abstract
Spelling is a prerequisite to expressing vocabulary in writing. Research has shown that children with dyslexia are hesitant
spellers when composing. This study aimed to determine whether the hesitant spelling of children with dyslexia, evidenced
by frequent pausing, affects vocabulary choices when writing. A total of 31 children with dyslexia, mean age 9 years,
were compared to typically developing groups of children: the first matched by age, the second by spelling ability. Oral
vocabulary was measured and children completed a written and verbal compositional task. Lexical diversity comparisons
were made across written and verbal compositions to highlight the constraint of having to select and spell words. A digital
writing tablet recorded the writing. Children with dyslexia and the spelling-ability group made a high proportion of spelling
errors and within-word pauses, and had a lower lexical diversity within their written compositions compared to their
verbal compositions. The age-matched peers demonstrated the opposite pattern. Spelling ability and pausing predicted 53%
of the variance in written lexical diversity of children with dyslexia, demonstrating the link between spelling and vocabulary
when writing. Oral language skills had no effect. Lexical diversity correlated with written and verbal text quality for all
groups. Practical implications are discussed and related to writing models.

Keywords
dyslexia, spelling, vocabulary, writing

Writing requires integrating cognitive, linguistic, and motor
processes. It is consistently reported that children and adults
with dyslexia have difficulties with accurate spelling
(Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely, 2013), and more
generally with the composition of written texts (Berninger,
Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008; Connelly,
Campbell, MacLean, & Barnes, 2006; Gregg, Coleman,
Davis, & Chalk, 2007; Sumner, Connelly, & Barnett, 2014).
The “simple view” and “not-so-simple” models of writing
development (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; Berninger &
Winn, 2006) highlight transcription, text generation, and
executive function as the three key components involved
when writing, all of which are overseen by working mem-
ory resources. The lower-level transcription process (the act
of integrating spelling and handwriting to produce a visible
trace of the text) must become an automatized skill to free
resources to be devoted to the compositional aspect of writ-
ing (Berninger & Winn, 2006). With this in mind, and as the
models predict, producing spellings while composing a
written text will impose a high cognitive demand on poor
spellers. The impact of poor spelling on the writing process
is of interest in the present study.
In a recent study, children with dyslexia made a higher
proportion of spelling errors and tended to pause more fre-
quently while composing a narrative text in comparison to
their typically developing same-age peers (Sumner,
Connelly, & Barnett, 2013). The amount and duration of
pausing while writing were similar to those of a younger
spelling-ability-matched group. Pause behavior was not
explained by poor motor skills, but rather slow hesitant
spelling, linked to poor spelling ability, led to a slower over-
all writing time and poorer compositional quality (Sumner et
al., 2013). Thus, the cognitive demand of spelling directly
affects the amount of time that writing takes for children
with dyslexia and is linked to the quality of writing pro-
duced. Might there be other repercussions for the composing
process as a consequence of slow hesitant spelling of words?
1
Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
2
Oxford Brookes University, UK
Corresponding Author:
Emma Sumner, PhD, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University
of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK.
Email: e.sumner@gold.ac.uk
294 Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(3)
Words selected for composition are mentally generated
and accurately transcribed onto the page through the
application of spelling knowledge (Berninger & Winn,
2006; Van Galen, 1991). Transcription is thus closely
related to text generation, as transcription is the tool to
demonstrate the ideas that the writer wishes to convey.
However, to date, studies on children with dyslexia have
not yet considered the relationship between the transcrip-
tion and text generation processes identified in models of
writing.
Text generation is highly dependent on the selection of
appropriate vocabulary from the mental lexicon (Treiman,
Clifton, Meyer, & Wurm, 2003). In spoken language, there
is a strong link between the diversity of vocabulary and the
quality of a spoken narrative (Yu, 2010). Similarly, a greater
written lexical diversity has been shown to significantly
correlate with the quality of compositions produced by typi-
cally developing children (Olinghouse & Leaird, 2009).
Studies on adults with dyslexia have also shown that diverse
vocabulary choices (lexical diversity) are a key marker of
the quality of compositions (Connelly et al., 2006).
However, in the literature it has been suggested that chil-
dren with dyslexia avoid writing words they cannot spell
(Berninger et al., 2008), implying that these children restrict
their vocabulary when writing supposedly due to their spell-
ing difficulties. Few attempts have yet been made to test
this anecdotal report.
A text with low lexical diversity points toward frequent
repetition of the same words. Connelly et al. (2006) used a
written composition task from a sentence prompt and found
no difference in the number of different words produced by
university students with dyslexia and their same-age peers
and spelling-ability-matched peers. This study used a count
of the number of different words produced as a proxy for
lexical diversity. However, this measure has been criticized
for being too simplistic and prone to text length influence
(McCarthy & Jarvis, 2010). Certainly in the above study,
text length varied across groups.
There are ways to examine diversity, such as dividing
types of words produced (the number of different words) by
the tokens (total number of words in a written sample)—
referred to as type–token ratio (TTR). Of interest, when
even more stringent measures of lexical diversity are
employed (e.g., mathematical transformations of TTR to
control for text length) a difference is reported between the
written performance of university students with and without
dyslexia (Wengelin, 2007, used the vocd measure, a pro-
gram that uses an algebraic transformation model to esti-
mate diversity). Swedish students with dyslexia that
composed a written text (typed) scored significantly below
their age-matched peers on this lexical diversity measure.
Moreover, the typed compositions were analyzed using
keystroke logging, which highlighted that students with
dyslexia made a high percentage of within-word pauses
while writing and that their number of within-word pauses
and revisions to spelling errors together predicted 55% of
the variance in written lexical diversity. Of interest,
Wengelin (2007) also reported that these students with dys-
lexia performed at the same level as their peers on the mea-
sure of lexical diversity (vocd) when analyzing verbally
produced texts.
Findings from adult data suggest a link among spelling,
pausing, and written vocabulary choice. The gap between
spoken and written lexical diversity in adults with dyslexia
(Wengelin, 2007) further highlights their difficulty with
writing. However, it is possible that the participants in the
Wengelin (2007) study had a more limited oral vocabulary
to draw on than their peers (no independent measure of
vocabulary was taken). Studies have suggested that due to
reduced reading exposure children with dyslexia may have
a smaller oral vocabulary in comparison to their peers
(Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989). Thus, when investigating
vocabulary diversity it is important to measure performance
on standardized vocabulary tasks as well as comparing
written and oral vocabulary. If spelling difficulties constrain
written vocabulary in individuals with dyslexia, then there
should be a measurable discrepancy between the diversity
of vocabulary in oral versus written tasks.
Studies to date that have examined dyslexia and written
vocabulary use have primarily focused on adults in higher
education. University students may not be typical of the
broader range of individuals with dyslexia since they are
required to frequently read and write and may have devel-
oped more practiced ways of coping with their difficulties.
On the other hand, little research has focused on the writing
produced by children, which is important to acknowledge
as soon as possible to provide necessary support as required.
For these reasons, this study examined vocabulary, spelling,
lexical diversity, and compositional writing in children with
and without dyslexia close to 9 years of age and a younger
spelling-ability-matched group.
The Present Study
The focus of the present study was on the transcription and
text generation (lower-level) processes (Berninger & Winn,
2006). The aim of this study was to investigate whether the
hesitant and thus poorer spelling ability that is characteristic
of children with dyslexia constrains the written vocabulary
choices made and affects the quality of writing produced.
The writing process was examined using a digital writing
tablet to detect pause locations and durations during the
composition task.
Pause performance was examined in relation to spelling
ability. Within-word pausing is thought to reflect transcrip-
tion demands (Almond, Deane, Quinlan, Wagner, &
Sydorenko, 2012). Similar to Wengelin (2007), it was
expected that children with dyslexia would pause frequently
Sumner et al. 295
within words (reflecting a struggle with the spelling of
words already chosen for writing) and that this would be
correlated with spelling ability more so than oral vocabu-
lary levels, as dyslexia is a written language problem.
Guiraud’s R index (see Vermeer, 2000) was the lexical
diversity measure used to assess verbal and written com-
positions. Other measures of diversity (such as vocd)
could not be used as they require a minimum of 50 tokens
to compute. Many children with dyslexia did not reach
this count in the written compositions. R is a mathematical
transformation of TTR and corrects for differing text
lengths. R divides the number of different words by the
square root of the total number of words (types/√tokens),
implying vocabulary size is proportional to the square root
of text length. Van Hout and Vermeer (2007, p. 114) state
that R is a “happy medium” between TTR and stronger
transformations of data, such as vocd, which entails select-
ing only a sample of words from the whole compositions
and mathematically modifying the data set, thus making it
more complex to interpret. Mellor (2011) reported that R
was useful in defining essays of high and low quality. As
is noted in the literature, there are many ways to measure
lexical diversity, but no single measure provides a perfect
result (Siskova, 2012). Therefore, a syllable count of
words produced (used in Gregg et al., 2007) in the compo-
sitions was also used to verify the Guiraud’s R diversity
findings.
It was hypothesized that the written compositions of
children with dyslexia and the younger spelling-ability
group would reflect a lower lexical diversity than the age-
matched group and diversity would be lower in the written
as opposed to the verbal compositions for children with
dyslexia (reflecting the cognitive demands of spelling).
Similar group patterns were predicted for syllable count.
Spelling ability was expected to predict written lexical
diversity for children with dyslexia rather than oral vocabu-
lary ability, demonstrating a relationship between spelling
and written word choice. It was also predicted that children
with dyslexia would perform better in lexical diversity in
the verbal compositions, where spelling demands are elimi-
nated. It might be expected that children with dyslexia
would perform better in verbal lexical diversity than the
younger spelling-ability-matched group due to more lan-
guage experience over the years.
The final hypotheses relate to compositional quality.
Verbal compositions produced by children with dyslexia
were expected to be of a higher quality than their written
work that requires spelling. Greater lexical diversity was
expected to relate to a higher quality of the compositions
produced (verbal and written; Olinghouse & Leaird, 2009)
by both children with dyslexia and typically developing
children, highlighting the importance of using varied
vocabulary when composing a narrative.
Method
Participants
A total of 31 children with dyslexia (15 boys, 16 girls), aged
between 8 years 3 months and 11 years 1 month (mean age of
9 years 4 months) were recruited from primary schools in
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. These children were recog-
nized by the school special educational needs coordinators
(SENCos) as showing significant difficulties with reading
and spelling and in the absence of any additional problems
with speech and language, hearing, or neurological disorders.
Selection measures were administered to confirm a diagnosis
of dyslexia. A discrepancy between nonverbal cognitive abil-
ity, on the Matrices task, and their performance on a dictated
standardized spelling task was confirmed for children with
dyslexia (both tasks from British Abilities Scales–II; BAS-II;
Elliott, Smith, & McCulloch, 1996). The discrepancy crite-
rion meant that all children scored within the average range
on nonverbal cognitive ability (scaled M = 50) but that chil-
dren with dyslexia scored more than one standard deviation
below the age mean on spelling performance.
Table 1 shows the scores from the selection measures
and additional measures of reading and vocabulary level,
comparing children with dyslexia to two typically develop-
ing groups: a chronologically age-matched group (CA) and
a spelling-ability-matched group (SA). All children had
English as their first language.
The CA group were recruited by individually matching
children in the same school and year group to the children with
dyslexia. CA children were initially identified by the class
teacher as of a similar age to the already selected children with
dyslexia (±3 months) and of the same gender (15 boys, 16
girls). The CA group differed to children with dyslexia, as they
demonstrated a level of spelling knowledge that was age
appropriate (±1 SD of the age mean dictated spelling task). The
SA comparison group were also individually matched to chil-
dren with dyslexia by gender and school. The BAS-II spelling
task (Elliott et al., 1996) was distributed to whole classes
(between 5 and 8 years of age), and those children who per-
formed similar to children with dyslexia on the spelling raw
score (±1 point) were recruited for further study. All children
were previously identified as typically developing by class
teachers. Standardized spelling scores were also recorded to
ensure the SA group had age-appropriate spelling.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a
significant difference in participant age across the three
groups. Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed that children
with dyslexia and the CA group were not different in age.
These two groups were older than the SA group.
Multivariate analysis of variance revealed there was a
significant main effect of group across the remaining mea-
sures in Table 1, Pillai’s trace V = 1.56, F(18, 146) = 28.82,
p < .001, η2 = .78. Univariate ANOVAs (reported in Table 1)
296 Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(3)

Table 1.  Group Means and Standard Deviations for the Selection and Additional Profile Measures.

Measures D (n = 31) CA (n = 31) SA (n = 31) ANOVA Post hoc

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)  
Age (range) 9;4 (8;3–11;1) 9;4 (8;4–11) 6;6 (5;1–8) F(2, 90) = 111.17, p < .001, η2p = .71 (D = CA) > SA
Nonverbal abilitya
  Scaled score 51.00 (3.83) 51.74 (6.21) 54.46 (4.87) F(2, 90) = 7.92, p = .001, η2p = .15 (D = CA) < SA
Spelling abilitya
  Raw score 8.09 (3.15) 25.16 (8.34) 9.26 (2.94) F(2, 90) = 54.14, p < .001, η2p = .70 (D = SA) < CA
  Standard score 79.06 (5.33) 110.68 (13.04) 92.84 (6.58) F(2, 90) = 64.28, p < .001, η2p = .57 D < SA < CA
Reading abilitya
  Raw score 23.13 (11.70) 49.86 (8.98) 26.35 (11.68) F(2, 90) = 53.42, p < .001, η2p = .55 (D = SA) < CA
  Standard score 80.87 (10.56) 113.75 (11.68) 98.19 (13.44) F(2, 90) = 37.13, p < .001, η2p = .61 D < SA < CA
Phoneme segmentationb
  Raw score 6.65 (1.47) 11.84 (0.63) 9.29 (1.32) F(2, 90) = 122.76, p < .001, η2p = .73 D < SA < CA
Receptive vocabularyc
  Raw score 88.09 (11.19) 104.06 (18.63) 71.03 (11.41) F(2, 90) = 40.34, p < .001, η2p = .48 SA < D < CA
  Standard score 92.71 (7.21) 104.29 (5.10) 100.68 (8.48) F(2, 90) = 21.80, p < .001, η2p = .41 D < (CA = SA)
Expressive vocabularya
  Raw score 9.06 (3.56) 15.00 (3.71) 9.58 (2.98) F(2, 90) = 28.42, p < .001, η2p = .39 (D = SA) < CA
  Scaled score 40.68 (8.42) 54.94 (11.40) 49.65 (6.23) F(2, 90) = 20.15, p < .001, η2p = .31 D < (CA = SA)

Note. CA = chronologically age matched; D = dyslexic; SA = spelling-ability matched.

a
British Abilities Scales–II; scaled score M = 50, SD = 10; standard score M = 100, SD = 15. Raw score = total number of words spelled correctly.bDyslexia
Screening Test–Junior; raw score out of a possible 12. cBritish Picture Vocabulary Scale–II; standard score M = 100, SD = 15.

and post hoc comparisons confirmed children with dyslexia
and the SA group were matched on raw spelling skill (p =
.64), whereas the CA group scored significantly higher. The
CA and SA groups scored within the expected range on the
spelling task (evidenced by the standardized score),
although the CA group performed better overall. The differ-
ence between the CA and SA standardized spelling scores
was not considered problematic, as the primary concern
was comparing children with dyslexia to the two control
groups.
It is noted that the SA group scored significantly higher
than children with dyslexia and the CA group on nonverbal
cognitive ability. However, this was only a slight difference,
and as the SA group were not performing more than 1 SD
above the age mean, it was not considered to have implica-
tions for compositional performance. Children with dys-
lexia performed below the CA and SA groups on the
standardized spelling score, reading, phoneme, and vocabu-
lary measures. However, the mean vocabulary scores for
children with dyslexia did not reach 1 SD below the
expected value. It was noted that those children with dys-
lexia who had the lowest score in the expressive task were
not the lowest scorers in the receptive task.
Measures
Nonverbal cognitive ability.  Children completed the Matrices
task from the BAS-II (Elliott et al., 1996), which required
using their reasoning skills to identify the correct missing
part (out of 5 options) of a visual stimulus. A scaled score
was derived from the number of correctly identified answers
(M = 50, SD = 10). Internal reliability ranges from α = .78
to .90 for the specified age groups in this study
Spelling.  A dictated single-word spelling test from the BAS-
II (Elliott et al., 1996) was administered to all children. A
raw score was generated from the number of correct spell-
ings made, and converted to a standard score (M = 100, SD
= 15); this task shows high internal reliability for the age
groups (α = .84 to .93).
Reading.  Each child completed the single-word reading task
from the BAS-II (Elliott et al., 1996). Raw scores were con-
verted to a standard score (M = 100, SD = 15). Internal reli-
ability for the age groups ranged from α = .88 to .95.
Phoneme segmentation.  To assess each child’s ability to rec-
ognize and manipulate speech sounds, the phoneme seg-
mentation task was administered from the Dyslexia
Screening Test–Junior (DST-J; Fawcett & Nicolson, 2004).
Children were asked to delete specific phonemes from a
word and to say the end result out loud. Total possible raw
score was out of 12 marks.
Receptive vocabulary. The British Picture Vocabulary Scale–
II (BPVS-II; Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Burley, 1997)
Sumner et al. 297
assessed receptive vocabulary knowledge. Children had to
correctly identify the picture that corresponded to the spo-
ken word read by the experimenter. The raw score was con-
verted to a standard score (M = 100, SD = 15). The median
split-half reliability coefficient is .86.
Expressive vocabulary.  The word definitions task was admin-
istered from the BAS-II (Elliott et al., 1996), requiring each
child to verbally describe the meaning of a word. Descrip-
tions were later scored using the criteria in the test manual.
Raw scores were converted to a scaled score (M = 50, SD =
10). For this age range, internal reliability ranges from
α = .83 to .92.
Written compositional task. A narrative prompt from the
Wechsler Objective Language Dimensions (WOLD; Rust,
1996) was used, asking all children to describe their perfect
place to live. The prompt was typed above the writing paper
and read to the child before the task began. Children had 15
minutes to complete this task; no help with spellings or
ideas were given. When finished, all children reread their
compositions to the experimenter so that misspelled words
could be identified. Spelling errors were noted before typ-
ing compositions and correcting the errors to prevent bias
when scoring.
Verbal compositional task.  Verbal compositional skills were
assessed using the same narrative prompt as the writing task
(WOLD; Rust, 1996), following the same instructions,
albeit a few weeks later. Responses were audio-recorded
and later transcribed.
Procedure
This study was fully approved by the university research
ethics committee. Children were tested individually, in a
quiet room within their school. Selection measures were
administered in the first testing session to determine group
membership, and participants later completed the general
vocabulary measures and composition tasks. The written
and verbal compositional tasks were scheduled at least 2
weeks apart, with the writing task first.
It may be considered a limitation that the same narrative
task was used for both written and verbal compositions, but
this was deliberate so that accurate comparisons of perfor-
mance could be made. The written task was scheduled first
due to concerns over attrition and the hope of getting a full
sample of written compositions to fully address the rela-
tionship between spelling and lexical diversity. To help pre-
vent repetition, a gap of at least 2 weeks between the
sessions was scheduled (over the Christmas school holi-
day). Of importance, it was observed that children reported
something new in the second (verbal) compositional task.
As these were not taught sessions and children composed
on the spot, without time to plan, we did not expect the ver-
bal compositions to be influenced by previous knowledge
of the written task weeks before (procedure similar to
Wengelin, 2007).
The writing task was completed on lined paper that was
placed on the surface of a digital writing tablet (Wacom,
Intuos 4), which recorded the XY coordinates of the pen
when writing (Eye and Pen software, version 1; 100 Hz).
Data Analysis
Pause analysis.  Eye and Pen software detects temporal char-
acteristics of the execution of text, including pauses (inac-
tivity, on and off the paper) when writing. In the present
study, the aim was to identify where children made long
interruptions to their text making. A pause threshold of
2 seconds was decided on as reflecting a significant pause
from writing and is in accordance to studies that postulate
longer pauses reflect a high processing demand (Alves,
Castro, & de Sousa, 2007; Wengelin, 2007). Using the soft-
ware, pauses longer than 2 seconds were coded as either
within- or between-word pauses (Alamargot, Chesnet, Dan-
sac, & Ros, 2006).
Productivity.  Tokens (number of words) and types (number
of different words) were recorded as indicators of produc-
tivity. Misspellings were corrected in the written composi-
tions and used in this analysis. Spoken words showing the
child thinking aloud, such as “um,” “ahh,” and “what’s the
word?,” were excluded from the analyses.
Lexical diversity. The Guiraud index (R) was calculated,
transforming the often-used TTR to reduce the issue of text
length influencing diversity scores. Correlations between
Guiraud’s R and text length did reveal a significant relation-
ship (r = .34, at p = .02) for the whole sample. However, this
is a relatively small correlation, and the syllable count
below was used to further identify patterns of performance
across groups and modality.
Syllable count.  Compositions were analyzed for the number
of words used that had 3 or more syllables. This criterion
has been used to determine vocabulary level (Gregg et al.,
2007), as words with longer syllables are thought to reflect
a more advanced vocabulary, needing more consideration
of phonology and morphology. There was a nonsignificant
correlation between syllable count and text length (r = –.03,
p = .43).
Compositional quality.  The WOLD analytical assessment cri-
teria (Rust, 1996) were used to score compositions, cover-
ing ideas and development, organization/coherence,
vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar usage, and capital-
ization/punctuation. A score of up to 4 was possible for each
298 Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(3)
Table 2.  Percentage of Pause Locations > 2 s for the Three
Groups.
D (n = 31) CA (n = 31) SA (n = 31)
Pause location (%) (%) (%)
Within-word 20  4 20
pauses
Between-word 80 96 80
pauses
Note. CA = chronologically age matched; D = dyslexic; SA = spelling-
ability matched. Percentage of pauses made at each location is in relation
to the total number of pauses.
component (total raw score possible = 24). It was decided
that the full WOLD assessment criteria would not be pos-
sible to score from verbal compositions (e.g., punctuation),
and therefore only the following three components were
scored: ideas and development, organization/coherence,
and vocabulary. Reliability checks for the analytical scoring
were administered on 50% of the written and verbal sam-
ples (randomly selected). Interrater reliability ranged from
κ = .716 to .864 (p < .001) for the individually scored com-
ponents. Pearson’s correlation for the overall raw score
revealed an agreement of .96.
Results
Pause Performance in the Written Composition
A frequency count identified the number of pauses of over 2
seconds and the percentage of those pauses that were made
either within or between words (shown in Table 2). Children
with dyslexia and the SA group paused more (20%, > 2-s
pauses) within words than the CA group. The CA group
tended to pause more between words, and children with dys-
lexia again matched the performance of the SA group.
Pauses around spelling errors were analyzed. A one-way
ANOVA revealed significant group differences for the num-
ber of spelling errors made, F(2, 90) = 15.74, p < .001, η2p =
.26. Tukey post hoc comparisons demonstrated no signifi-
cant difference in the number of errors made by children
with dyslexia (M = 15.39, SD = 9.01; 24% of total text) and
the SA group (M = 12.56, SD = 8.78; 37% of text), but these
two groups made significantly more spelling errors than the
CA group (M = 4.87, SD = 4.08; 4%). A Kruskal–Wallis test
revealed a significant effect of group on the percentage of
within-word pauses (>2 s) made during a misspelled word,
H(2) = 25.56, p < .001. Follow-up Mann–Whitney tests
revealed children with dyslexia made significantly more
within-word pauses on spelling errors (34%; SD = 26.87)
than the CA (10%; SD = 23.75) and SA groups (22%; SD =
20.31), whereas the SA group made more of these pauses
than the CA group. An effect of group was also found for
between-word pauses whereby a spelling error was followed
by a pause, H(2) = 20.92, p < .001. Children with dyslexia
(13%; SD = 7.98) and the SA group (12%; SD = 10.73) per-
formed similarly, and made significantly more between-
word pauses following a spelling error than the CA group
(5%; SD = 6.61).
Additional analyses revealed that for children with dys-
lexia, a significant negative correlation was found between
spelling ability and within-word pausing (r = –.61, p <
.001), and spelling and between-word pausing (r = –.55, p =
.001); the lower the spelling level the more pauses occurred.
These correlations were not found to be significant for the
CA or the SA group, although in the SA group it was
approaching significance (r = –.32). No significant correla-
tions were found for within-word or between-word pause
frequency and the general vocabulary tasks, for any of the
three groups.
Lexical Performance in the Written and Verbal
Compositions
Separate 3 × 2 (group × modality) repeated ANOVAs were
conducted for tokens, types, and lexical diversity (Table 3,
mean scores). For this and all subsequent analyses requiring
multiple comparisons, Bonferroni confidence interval
adjustments were applied to control for false positives.
Tokens.  There was a significant effect of group, F(2, 90) =
20.39, p < .001, η2p = .31, and modality, F(1, 90) = 16.43, p
< .001, η2p = .15; more tokens (words) were produced in the
verbal compositions. There was also a significant interac-
tion between modality and group, F(2, 90) = 7.69, p = .001,
η2p = .15. Children with dyslexia and the SA group pro-
duced fewer words when writing in comparison to the ver-
bal task. However, children with dyslexia were not
significantly different to the CA group for this verbal
measure.
Types.  There was a significant effect of group, F(2, 90) =
28.25, p < .001, η2p = .38, modality, F(1, 90) = 8.99, p =
.004, η2p = .09, and an interaction between modality and
group, F(2, 90) = 12.62, p < .001, η2p = .22. Mean estimates
demonstrated a higher number of different types of words in
the verbal compositions. When writing, the SA group had a
more restricted vocabulary than children with dyslexia,
whereas the CA group wrote a higher number of different
types. There was a nonsignificant difference between chil-
dren with dyslexia and the CA group for the types in the
verbal compositions.
Guiraud index (R).  There was a significant effect of group
membership, F(2, 90) = 20.63, p < .001, η2p = .31, but not
for modality, F(1, 90) = 2.01, p = .16, η2p = .02. The interac-
tion between modality and group was significant, F(2, 90) =
4.56, p = .01, η2p = .09. Lexical diversity (R) was lowest for
Sumner et al. 299

Table 3.  Group Means and Standard Deviations for the Lexical Measures.

D (n = 31) CA (n = 31) SA (n = 31)

Lexical
measures M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Post hoc
Tokens
 Written 70.19 (35.79) 126.52 (48.64) 35.19 (20.31) SA < D < CA
 Verbal 144.42 (108.32) 122.52 (70.27) 64.35 (50.68) SA < (D = CA)
Types
 Written 41.79 (18.25) 72.52 (22.91) 22.13 (9.64) SA < D < CA
 Verbal 67.13 (37.63) 60.65 (28.12) 36.55 (23.85) SA < (D = CA)
R
 Written 4.93 (1.02) 6.44 (0.96) 3.75 (0.75) SA < D < CA
 Verbal 5.57 (1.23) 5.90 (3.01) 4.45 (1.29) (D = CA) > SA

Note. CA = chronologically age matched; D = dyslexic; R = Guiraud index of diversity (types/√tokens); SA = spelling-ability matched; tokens = number
of words; types = number of different words.

Table 4.  Syllable Count (Three or More) From the Written Univariate ANOVAs and Games–Howell post hocs con-
and Verbal Compositions. firmed that children with dyslexia wrote fewer words of
D CA SA longer syllables than their CA peers, F(2, 92) = 22.36, MSE
= 95.88, p < .001, η2 = .33. However, on the verbal compo-
Syllables M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Post hoc sitional task children with dyslexia scored at the same level
3+ syllables as the CA group on syllable length, with both groups sig-
 Writtena 1.93 (1.96) 4.10 (2.86) 0.73 (0.88) SA < D < CA nificantly higher than the SA group, F(2, 92) = 4.02, MSE =
 Verbalb 4.90 (3.76) 3.71 (4.33) 1.81 (2.09) (D = CA) > SA 75.62, p = .02, η2 = .18.

Note. CA = chronologically age matched; D = dyslexic; SA = spelling-

ability matched.
a
Only 22 children with dyslexia wrote at least one word of 3 or more
syllables, whereas 28 CA and 15 SA children did.
b
29 children with dyslexia spoke at least one word of 3 or more
syllables, 24 in the CA group, and 22 SA children.
children with dyslexia in the written task, in comparison to
their performance in the verbal task, although children in
the SA group performed worse overall. Children with dys-
lexia and the SA group showed a reverse pattern, in com-
parison to the CA group, of having a higher lexical diversity
in the verbal rather than the written.
The written R results were computed again with recep-
tive (BPVS-II) and expressive vocabulary (word defini-
tions) as covariates (ANCOVA). The covariates were not
significantly related to written lexical diversity, F(1, 88) =
3.33, p = .07, η2p = .04, and F(1, 88) = 0.64, p = .38, η2p =
.01, respectively. However, the significant effect of group
membership remained as reported above, even after con-
trolling for the lower oral vocabulary levels of the children
with dyslexia, F(2, 88) = 59.14, p < .001, η2p = .57, and here
the difference in lexical diversity in written texts remained
in comparison to their same-aged peers.
The number of words composed of three syllables or
more was also calculated per text (Table 4). Multivariate
analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect of
group on syllable length, Pillai’s trace V = .39, F(4, 180) =
11.19, p < .001, η2 = .21.
Predictors of Written Lexical Diversity
Table 5 shows bivariate correlations that were computed
individually for the three groups to examine the relationship
of pause behavior, spelling ability, and oral vocabulary to
written lexical diversity (R) performance.
A significant negative correlation was found between
more frequent within-word and between-word pausing,
being related to a lower written lexical diversity for children
with dyslexia; yet only the within-word pauses were signifi-
cantly related to lexical diversity for the SA group. For chil-
dren with dyslexia, spelling had a significant positive
correlation with written lexical diversity, as did the recep-
tive vocabulary measure, whereas expressive vocabulary
did not. In contrast, the verbal lexical diversity measure was
the only significant correlation with written lexical diver-
sity for the CA group.
Hierarchical regression analyses were computed to focus
on the predictors of written lexical diversity. For children
with dyslexia, spelling ability was entered first due to the
initial predictions made, and both within-word and between-
word pause frequency were entered together in the next step
as predictor variables for the outcome variable written lexi-
cal diversity (R). Addressing the predictive value of oral
language skills, receptive vocabulary was entered into the
regression.
Table 6 illustrates that spelling ability accounted for 41%
of the variance in performance for written R by children
300 Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(3)
Table 5.  Written Guiraud (R) Correlations With Pausing,
Spelling, and Oral Vocabulary Measures.
Correlation measures D (n = 31) CA (n = 31) SA (n = 31)
Within-word pausing −.60* −.11 −.48*
Between-word pausing −.59* −.26 −.22
Spelling abilitya .64* .24 −.13
Receptive vocabularyb .45* .02 .01
Expressive vocabularya .38 .12 .13
Verbal R .18 .64* .28
Note. CA = chronologically age matched; D = dyslexic; SA = spelling-
ability matched.
a
British Abilities Scales–II. bBritish Picture Vocabulary Scale–II.
*Bonferroni correction p < .01 (two-tailed).
with dyslexia, with within-word and between-word paus-
ing, significantly predicting a further 12% of the variance.
Once spelling ability and within- and between-word pause
frequency were accounted for, receptive vocabulary was
not a significant predictor.
Linear regressions were computed for the two control
groups. The correlations in Table 5 demonstrated that spell-
ing would not influence written lexical diversity for the
control groups. For this reason, lexical diversity (R) on the
verbal compositional task was the predictor variable for the
CA group, significantly accounting for 41% of the variance
in scores for written lexical diversity, R2 = .41, ß = .64, F(1,
29) = 20.26, p < .001. In contrast, within-word pausing was
entered as the predictor of written lexical diversity for the
SA group, revealing a significant value of 15%, R2 = .15,
ß = –.38, F(1, 29) = 4.80, p = .03.
Quality Ratings of the Written and Verbal
Compositions
The full WOLD analytical scoring (all six criteria) was first
applied to the written compositions produced and revealed a
significant effect of group, F(2, 90) = 49.09, p < .001, η2p =
.53. Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that children with
dyslexia (M = 8.61, out of a possible raw score of 24)
matched the performance of the younger SA group (M =
7.52), whereas both of these groups scored significantly
below the CA group (M = 13.68). A high percentage of spell-
ing errors in relation to text length were recorded in the com-
positions produced by children with dyslexia (21%) and the
SA group (39%), whereas the CA group made significantly
fewer errors (4%), F(2, 90) = 57.54, p < .001, η2p = .56.
Table 7 illustrates performance on the three WOLD scor-
ing components that could be compared across both modal-
ities: ideas and development, organization/coherence, and
vocabulary. Three separate 3 × 2 (group × modality)
repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted.
Ideas and development.  There was a significant main effect
of group, F(2, 90) = 12.84, p < .001, η2p = .22, and modality,
F(1, 90) = 19.26, p < .001, η2p = .18, with significantly
higher scores for the verbal compositions and a significant
interaction between modality and group, F(2, 90) = 8.98, p
< .001, η2p = .17. Children with dyslexia and the SA group
produced more developed ideas in the verbal compositions,
whereas the CA controls showed an opposite pattern. A
decrease in the CA ideas from written to verbal meant their
performance was no different to children with dyslexia in
the verbal compositions.
Organization/coherence. A significant effect was found for
group, F(2, 90) = 9.28, p < .001, η2p = .17, and modality,
F(1, 90) = 42.67, p < .001, η2p = .32, with scores higher in
the verbal compositions. There was a significant interaction
between modality and group F(2, 90) = 5.56, p = .005, η2p =
.11. Children with dyslexia were no different to the SA
group in the written modality but performed better in verbal
compositions. Conversely, children with dyslexia matched
the CA group performance for this measure of the verbal
compositions.
Vocabulary.  A significant effect was found for group, F(2,
90) = 18.03, p < .001, η2p = .29, and modality, F(1, 90) =
12.00, p = .001, η2p = .12: Vocabulary scored higher in the
verbal compositions. There was a significant interaction
between modality and group membership, F(2, 90) = 7.36,
p = .001, η2p = .14. Children with dyslexia and the SA
group scored similarly in both conditions, increasing in
vocabulary level when composing a text verbally. There
was a significant difference between children with dyslexia
and the CA group in the written, but not in the verbal
compositions.
Lexical Diversity and the Quality of Written and
Verbal Compositions
R was used to establish the relationship of written lexical
diversity to written text quality (WOLD raw score).
Significant positive bivariate correlations (p < .05) were
found for children with dyslexia (r = .60) and their CA peers
(r = .36): The more diverse the vocabulary was in the writ-
ten compositions, the higher the compositions were graded.
However, this relationship was nonsignificant for the
younger SA group (r = .29).
The same comparisons were conducted for the verbal
lexical diversity (R) and the overall raw score of the three
marked verbal WOLD categories. Significant correlations
(p < .05) for all groups showed verbal R for children with
dyslexia (r = .73), CA (r = .74), and SA groups (r = .77) had
a positive relationship with performance in the verbal com-
position task.
Sumner et al. 301

Table 6.  Regression Equation Predicting Written Lexical Diversity (R) for Children With Dyslexia.

Predictor variables ß R2 R2 change F df p

a
Spelling ability .64 .41 .41 20.09 1, 29 .000**
Within- and between-word pausing −.28 .53 .12 3.53 2, 27 .044*
Receptive vocabularyb .12 .54 .01 0.61 1, 26 .44
a
British Abilities Scales–II. bBritish Picture Vocabulary Scale–II.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

Table 7.  Group Means and Standard Deviations for the WOLD Assessment of the Written and Verbal Compositions.

D (n = 31) CA (n = 31) SA (n = 31)

WOLD
criteria M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Post hoc
Ideas and development
 Written 1.84 (0.68) 2.68 (0.79) 1.54 (0.57) (D = SA) < CA
 Verbal 2.55 (0.77) 2.55 (0.85) 2.09 (0.74) (D = CA) > SA
Organization/coherence
 Written 1.38 (0.55) 1.94 (0.57) 1.16 (0.37) (D = SA) < CA
 Verbal 2.03 (0.71) 2.06 (0.77) 1.77 (0.49) (D = CA) > SA
Vocabulary
 Written 1.48 (0.63) 2.48 (0.67) 1.52 (0.51) (D = SA) < CA
 Verbal 2.16 (0.58) 2.26 (0.63) 1.97 (0.71) D = CA = SA

Note. CA = chronologically age matched; D = dyslexic; SA = spelling-ability matched; WOLD = Wechsler Objective Language Dimensions (each section
marked out of a possible 4).

Discussion
The present study has confirmed that the poorer lexical
diversity in written compositions produced by children with
dyslexia is related more to spelling ability than vocabulary
knowledge, supported by the correlation and regression
analyses that have shown spelling ability has a high predic-
tive value on written vocabulary. Moreover, both the objec-
tive (lexical diversity, syllable count) and more subjective
(WOLD assessment) measures of vocabulary have demon-
strated that the vocabulary choices of children with dyslexia
when writing are poorer than their age-matched peers. The
extra demands that writing and spelling make on children
with dyslexia were highlighted by the gap between verbal
and written narrative performance and the age-appropriate
lexical diversity shown in the verbal transcripts by these
same children. These findings confirm the view that, for
children with dyslexia, spelling is a costly cognitive process
when writing as predicted by models of writing (Berninger
& Amtmann, 2003), further noted by the many spelling
errors in the texts of children with dyslexia and the poorer
overall quality of the written text.
This study also provides evidence of how the cognitive
demand of spelling is manifested during the writing process.
Showing that written lexical diversity, spelling, and frequent
pausing are interlinked demonstrates that spelling difficulties
force the writer to pause frequently within words. The rela-
tionships among spelling, lexical diversity, and between-
word pausing also provide strong evidence to show that
selection of the next word is highly linked to spelling ability,
and actually not to oral vocabulary, which failed to signifi-
cantly correlate with between-word pausing.
The robustness of the lexical diversity results were
underlined by a similar finding showing words with less
syllables were produced by the children with dyslexia when
writing but not in the verbal narrative. Thus, the broken,
hesitant style of writing of the children with dyslexia is not
associated with the fluent style and appropriate vocabulary
choices that are required to keep on track with successful
text generation. The use of a spelling-ability match group
demonstrated that the children with dyslexia were severely
delayed in their writing development but that they were not
that substantially different in how they write, notably paus-
ing frequently while making text, which related to written
lexical performance.
A nonsignificant correlation between spelling ability and
within-word pausing was noted for the spelling-ability-
matched group. However, this was approaching signifi-
cance and the size of the correlation was .32, showing that
it was in a very similar direction to those with dyslexia. It
may not be as strong as the children are typical for their age
for spelling and other factors may also be contributing as
302 Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(3)
per the typically developing group, whereas the defining
feature of the children with dyslexia is the constraint of
spelling on writing given their superior oral language skills.
Thus, one would expect a stronger relationship between
spelling and pausing in the dyslexia group anyway.
The difficulties that children with dyslexia experienced
are further emphasized by the comparison to their age-
matched peers. This control group was actually found to
produce a more diverse range of vocabulary in the written
task, rather than in their verbal composition. Typically
developing children of the same age as this study have also
been shown in another study to have a higher written lexical
diversity when comparing written and verbal compositions
(Johansson, 2008). A significant relationship between writ-
ten lexical diversity and text quality makes a stronger case
for the importance of vocabulary when writing (Olinghouse
& Leaird, 2009). It could be suggested that as the age-
matched controls do not have difficulties with spelling,
working memory resources are free to be devoted to the
generation of ideas (including vocabulary). The higher
WOLD quality score in writing demonstrates that these
children have reached a more proficient level of writing
than children with dyslexia.
A potential limitation is that although the WOLD scoring
criteria are useful to identify aspects of composition, the
limited scoring scale (1–4) could lead to the younger spell-
ing-ability group have a higher floor effect than might be
expected. A score of 0 is not allowed but may have been
suitable for some of the younger group. For this reason, the
objective lexical diversity measures of vocabulary contrib-
ute to the present findings substantially.
While arguing for the importance of vocabulary skill for
quality of writing (as shown for children with dyslexia), it
was a surprise that the standardized assessments of vocabu-
lary were not significantly correlated with written lexical
diversity (R) for the control groups. This could be related to
the idea that standardized assessments of vocabulary knowl-
edge may assess something slightly different to how many
words (diverse) children can select and use in their compo-
sitions. In fact, a significant correlation was found between
verbal lexical diversity (R) and written diversity for the age-
matched group, so perhaps this was a more appropriate
measure of vocabulary knowledge for the assessed task.
Moreover, significant correlations were found between
diversity measures and quality of writing for both the con-
trol groups and children with dyslexia, further supporting
this idea.
According to the simple view of writing (Berninger &
Amtmann, 2003) it could be hypothesized that spelling
consumes working memory resources for children with
dyslexia, and as a consequence text quality suffers due to
restricted vocabulary. Correlational analyses in the present
study have shown a positive relationship between spelling
ability and written lexical diversity. However, vocabulary
selection receives little attention, neither as a resource
(language ability) nor as an active writing component in
the simple view of writing or other contemporary develop-
mental models of writing. Our findings suggest that the
transcription and text generation are closely related and
interactive. This interactivity has important consequences
for the efficiency of the writing processes and the end
product. A hierarchical level of processing can be hypoth-
esized whereby the mental lexicon is addressed during the
online production and execution of writing. For children
with dyslexia this process is largely determined by spell-
ing capabilities and the long pauses while writing demon-
strate this conflict. These pauses could represent a
breakdown of the efficient parallel processing of informa-
tion (reflecting the required interaction between transcrip-
tion and text generation) to a slower sequential processing
when the cognitive demands are too high (Maggio, Lete,
Chenu, Jisa, & Fayol, 2012). Until this study, this process-
oriented approach had not yet been considered in research
on dyslexia and writing performance, and this study has
demonstrated that the activation of the writing processes is
a recursive process.
It has been suggested that children with dyslexia could
have poorer vocabularies to draw on when writing through
having deeper-seated language problems that may interfere
with text generation. However, a number of thorough
reviews have emphasized that children with dyslexia are
distinct from those with wider language problems (Bishop
& Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adolf, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005).
A more recent article clearly demonstrates that both dys-
lexia and specific language impairment can occur indepen-
dently (Ramus et al., 2013). To ensure the present sample
did not have broader language difficulties, additional
vocabulary measures were administered and, as part of the
initial selection criteria, children recognized by the SENCo
as having speech or language problems were excluded.
Children with dyslexia did score significantly below their
peers on the standardized measures of vocabulary, although
this is not unusual (Ramus et al., 2013). On average, their
performance did not reach more than one standard devia-
tion below the test mean and differences found between
groups in the study remained when the vocabulary differ-
ences were accounted for statistically. Unlike studies on the
writing of children with language impairments, where both
spelling and vocabulary contributed significantly to compo-
sitional quality (Dockrell, Lindsay, & Connelly, 2009;
Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, & Mackie, 2007), it was spell-
ing that was the key constraint on writing in this study when
examining children with dyslexia.
In terms of implications, it might seem that an appropri-
ate method for children with spelling difficulties to com-
pose a text would be through dictation of their work, as this
frees the demands of writing. Productivity has been found
to be highest when children compose texts through
Sumner et al. 303
dictation, rather than writing a narrative (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1987). However, dictation is only a short-term
solution and one that is not always practical. Writing is an
important skill for education and life thereafter. Children
and adults need to learn to be independently proficient in
writing. For these reasons, it is suggested that more practi-
cal implications of the present findings would be to focus
on the spelling difficulties: the root of the problem with
expressing written vocabulary. Further research should be
targeted toward how specific spelling instruction can
improve confidence in spellings and in turn allow these
children to use a wider range of words from their vocabu-
lary when writing. A recent meta-analysis of spelling inter-
ventions has shown that gains in spelling also generalized to
spelling when writing (Graham & Santangelo, 2014),
whereas another study demonstrated improved fluency in
writing after a spelling intervention (Berninger et al., 2002).
To conclude, the present study provides important data
for an area that is largely under researched and has previ-
ously focused mainly on adults, rather than children. The
findings confirm the original predictions that spelling abil-
ity can constrain vocabulary choices when writing, and thus
constrain text quality. In parallel with the reading literature
that shows a relationship between reading and vocabulary
development, a similar pattern is shown between the pro-
cessing of spellings and written vocabulary. These findings
contribute to models of writing, which would benefit from
noting the relationships between different processes and
how an impairment in one area (spelling) can have reper-
cussions for another aspect of development.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks go to the children and schools that participated in
this study.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research was supported by the Waterloo Foundation and Oxford
Brookes University, through a PhD studentship that was awarded
to Emma Sumner.
References
Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C., & Ros, C. (2006). Eye
and Pen: A new device for studying reading during writing.
Behaviour Research Methods, 38(2), 287–299.
Almond, R., Deane, P., Quinlan, T., Wagner, M., & Sydorenko,
T. (2012). A preliminary analysis of keystroke log data from
a timed writing task (Research Report Series RR-12-23).
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & de Sousa, L. (2007). Influence of typ-
ing skill on pause–execution cycles in written composition. In
G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D.
Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and appli-
cations (Studies in Writing Vol. 20, pp. 55–65). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Berninger, V. W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written
expression disabilities through early and continuing assess-
ment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling prob-
lems: Research into practise. In H. L. Swanson, S. Graham,
& K. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp.
345–363). New York, NY: Guilford.
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., &
Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems in developmental dys-
lexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School
Psychology, 46, 1–21.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman,
K. B., Curtin, G.,  . . . Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spell-
ing and composition alone and together: Implications for the
simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94, 291–304.
Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advance-
ments in brain research and technology for writing develop-
ment, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of
writing research (pp. 96–114). New York, NY: Guilford.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dys-
lexia and specific language impairment: Same or different?
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858–886.
Catts, H. W., Adolf, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Weismer, S. E. (2005).
Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disor-
ders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
48, 1378–1396.
Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006).
Contribution of lower order skills to the written composition
of older students with and without dyslexia. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 29, 175–196.
Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact
of specific language impairment on adolescents’ written text.
Exceptional Children, 75, 427–436.
Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007).
Constraints in the production of written text in children with
specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73,
147–164.
Dunn, L., Dunn, L., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). British
Picture Vocabulary Scales (2nd ed.). Windsor, UK: NFER-
Nelson.
Elliott, C. D., Smith, P., & McCulloch, K. (1996). British Abilities
Scales II: Administration and scoring manual. Berkshire,
UK: NFER-Nelson.
Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (2004). The Dyslexia Screening
Test–Junior: Manual. London, UK: Psychological
Corporation.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Evaluation of the
role of phonological STM in the development of vocabu-
lary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory &
Language, 28, 200–213.
Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make
students better spellers, readers, and writers? A ­meta-analytic
304 Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(3)
review. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
27, 1703–1743.
Gregg, N., Coleman, C., Davis, M., & Chalk, J. C. (2007). Timed
essay writing: Implications for high-stakes tests. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 40, 306–318.
Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and density in speech and writ-
ing: A developmental perspective. Working Papers, 53, 61–79.
Maggio, S., Lete, B., Chenu, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2012).
Tracking the mind during writing: Immediacy, delayed, and
anticipatory effects on pauses and writing rate. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 2131–2151.
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, voc-d, and HD-D: A
validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diver-
sity assessment. Behaviour Research Methods, 42, 381–392.
Mellor, A. (2011). Essay length, lexical diversity and automatic essay
scoring. Memoirs of the Osaka Institute of Technology, 55, 1–14.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship
between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality
in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 545–565.
Ramus, F., Marshall, C. R., Rosen, S., & van der Lely, H. K. J.
(2013). Phonological deficits in specific language impairment
and developmental dyslexia: Towards a multidimensional
model. Brain, 136, 630–645.
Rust, J. (1996). The Manual of the Wechsler Objective Language
Dimensions (WOLD) UK edition. London, UK: Psychological
Corporation.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling
and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S.
Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol.
2, pp. 142–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siskova, Z. (2012). Lexical richness in EFL students’ narratives.
Language Studies Working Papers, 4, 26–36.
Sumner, E., Connelly, V., & Barnett, A. L. (2013). Children
with dyslexia are slow writers because they pause more
often and not because they are slow at handwriting execu-
tion. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26,
991–1008.
Sumner, E., Connelly, V., & Barnett, A. L. (2014). Dyslexia and
expressive writing in English. In B. Arfe, J. E. Dockrell, & V.
W. Berninger (Eds.), Writing development and instruction in
children with hearing, speech, and oral language difficulties.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Treiman, R., Clifton, C., Meyer, A. S., & Wurm, L. H. (2003).
Language comprehension and production. In A. F. Healy &
R. F. Proctor (Eds.), Experimental psychology (Vol. 4, pp.
527–547). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor
theory. Human Movement Science, 10, 165–191.
Van Hout, R., & Vermeer, A. (2007). Comparing measures of
lexical richness. In J. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller
(Eds.), Modeling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp.
93–114). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in
spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65–83.
Wengelin, A. (2007). The word-level focus in text production
by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In M. W.
Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and
cognition: Research and applications (pp. 67–82). Oxford,
UK: Elsevier.
Yu, G. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task per-
formance. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236–259.