Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01550.

x
Volume 38, Issue 1, 2015, pp 18–34

The role of oral language in

underpinning the text generation
difficulties in children with specific
language impairment

Julie E. Dockrell
Department of Psychology & Human Development, Institute of Education,
University of London, UK

Vincent Connelly
Oxford Brookes University, UK

Children with specific language impairments (SLI) have difficulties in producing writ-
ten text. It was hypothesised that the constraints on writing in children with SLI were
similar to typically developing younger children with the same level of vocabulary
knowledge. Twenty-three children with SLI (aged 10:5) were matched with 23 chil-
dren for chronological age (CA) and 23 children for vocabulary levels (VC). Children
with SLI performed significantly below their CA peers but not their VC peers on all
aspects of writing including spelling. Regression analyses indicated that written text
measures of spelling errors and oral language measures of vocabulary were significant
predictors of writing products for both the children with SLI and their VC peers. This
highlights the importance of oral and written language for the quality of children’s
written text and indicates that the writing of children with SLI was commensurate with
their vocabulary and spelling levels. The results point to the role of both phonological
and non-phonological processes in written text production in struggling writers.

The problems children have in producing written text have been a topic of research for many
years (Ogle, 1867). Yet, despite the difficulties experienced by many children in producing
fluent and accurate written text, studies of writing and the writing process have lagged behind
reading research (Miller, Molfese & Berninger, 2011; Myhill & Fisher, 2010) and also spell-
ing research (Caravolas, Hulme & Snowling, 2001). This is particularly true for children with
developmental difficulties (Dockrell, 2009). Studies of such populations provide an oppor-
tunity to enhance our understanding of the writing processes and the language and cognitive
barriers that can exist in producing written text. Children with language difficulties provide a
unique opportunity to examine the role of oral language in written text production.

Copyright © 2013 UKLA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 19

Children with SLI experience difficulties with both phonological and nonphonological
aspects of oral language (lexicon, morphology and syntax); although they do not necessar-
ily experience difficulties in both of these domains and there is considerable heterogeneity
within the population (Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 1999; Ebbels, Dockrell & van der Lely,
2012). As a consequence, they have significant difficulties in developing adequate literacy
skills. They struggle to learn to read and spell and they also struggle with the production
of written composition. However, to date research on the written composition skills of
children with SLI has been limited, focusing mainly on single word spelling. The ways in
which difficulties within the language system impact on writing is currently under-explored
(Connelly, Dockrell & Barnett, 2011).
There are clear associations between oral language skills and written text production
(Olinghouse, 2008). Text production requires the child to generate ideas and to ortho-
graphically translate that language into print while concurrently maintaining the generated
ideas that are yet to be recorded. This involves turning ideas into words and sentences and
so shares many cognitive components of oral language generation (McCutchen, Covill,
Hoyne & Mildes, 1994) . A number of studies have explored the correlations between oral
language measures and writing in typically developing children (see Shanahan, 2006, for a
review) and increased oral language facility is associated with increased written language
proficiency (McCutchen, 1986; Mehta, Foorman, Branum-Martin & Taylor, 2005; Wagner
et al., 2011). Relationships between oral language and writing are also reported to change
over time, where text measures of language may become more important than oral lan-
guage (Shanahan, 2006). Vocabulary as measured by lexical diversity in children’s writing
remains a significant factor in text quality throughout the primary school years (Olinghouse
& Leaird, 2009). Thus, both the children’s oral language levels and the ways in which they
are reflected in the text produced are significant factors in text production for typically
developing children.
Given our current understanding of the writing process, it is not surprising that difficul-
ties in the production of written text have been reported both for children with continued
language difficulties and those with resolved language problems (Bishop & Clarkson,
2003; Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin & Zhang, 2004). Texts of children with
SLI are shorter and more error prone than their typically developing peers (Bishop &
Clarkson, 2003; Fey et al., 2004) and for some aspects of text production, their language
matched peers (Gillam & Johnston, 1992; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; Mackie, Dockrell
& Lindsay, in press; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Both oral language measures of vocabu-
lary and written language assessments of spelling contribute to text production for pupils
with SLI throughout primary and secondary school (Dockrell, Lindsay & Connelly, 2009;
Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly & Mackie, 2007).
Language difficulties and delays experienced by children with SLI (Bishop, 2006)
provide an opportunity to examine the relationships between oral language and writing
performance. It has already been established that oral language skills differentially affect
reading performance (Bishop & Snowling, 2004). Poor phonological skills are associated
with reading decoding problems while problems with the nonphonological dimensions of
language, such as vocabulary, are associated with reading comprehension (Muter, Hulme,
Snowling & Stevenson, 2004; Nation, Cocksey, Taylor & Bishop, 2010). These subcompo-
nents of the oral language system are also predicted to be differentially important in pro-
ducing written text; limiting the children’s ability to produce accurate and age appropriate
texts. The current study investigates the ways in which two different dimensions of the oral
language system, phonology and vocabulary, and two different dimensions of children’s

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

20 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

written text, spelling and lexical diversity, impact on the written texts of children with SLI
and their chronological (CA) and vocabulary-matched (VC) peers.

Spelling

Spelling is a complex process in English involving phonological, morphological and or-

thographic skills (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy & Carlisle, 2010). Spelling is considered to be
a sensitive index of phonological skills in written text (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003; Larkin &
Snowling, 2008) and spelling errors are frequent in the texts of children with SLI (Bishop
& Clarkson, 2003; Lewis & Freebairn, 1992; Treiman, 1991), particularly phonological
errors (Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; Clarke-Klein, 1994). While children with SLI, as a
group, perform poorly in comparison to chronological age (CA) matched peers their per-
formance is typically commensurate with those of younger children matched for language
levels (Mackie & Dockrell, 2004) and reading levels (Larkin & Snowling, 2008).
However, it can be difficult to disentangle spelling levels and language levels (Windsor,
Scott & Street, 2000). It may be that children with SLI, although matched on language
levels with a comparison group, have poorer spelling, and that it is the children’s spelling
levels rather than their language levels which impact on writing.

Vocabulary and written lexical diversity

Spelling skills allow children to turn words in the mental lexicon into written symbols and,
therefore, are critical to the writing process. However, prior to attempting to spell words
children need to generate their ideas and translate these ideas into words and sentences.
Children draw on their lexical knowledge to represent their ideas and structure these ideas
into sentences. Indeed, for typically developing younger children oral vocabulary provides
a critical building block for written language (Green et al., 2003), providing children with
the ability to build a text and produce the basic infrastructure of text meaning (Berninger
et al., 1992). More advanced writing is associated with a greater number of different words
(Beard, 1986), increases in the number of adjectives (Wells & Chang, 1986) and an in-
creased number of adverbs and adverbial phrases (Perera, 1984). Targeting vocabulary
knowledge in interventions has been shown to enhance children’s written text quality
(Graham & Perin, 2007).
Many children with SLI have smaller oral vocabularies than matched peers and can
experience difficulties retrieving words that they comprehend (Messer, Dockrell &
Murphy, 2004; Nash & Donaldson, 2005), an area of vulnerability that impacts on the
quality of the texts they produce (Dockrell et al., 2007, 2009). The continuity of the
significant role of oral vocabulary in relation to text quality throughout adolescence,
over and above other oral language measures, confirms the view that vocabulary pro-
vides a building block for text generation processes for these children (Dockrell et al.,
2009). Studies demonstrating the impact of oral vocabulary on text generation have
been complemented by studies demonstrating reduced levels of lexical diversity and
poorer semantic content in the children’s written texts (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003; Fey
et al., 2004; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Therefore, in a population of children with SLI
we can expect significant difficulties with text generation, at least in relation to lexical
selection and the lexical diversity used in texts.

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 21

Unlike research in reading, studies of the nonphonological dimensions of the oral language
system associated with text generation have been limited (Shanahan, 2006). Thus, it is un-
clear whether limits in vocabulary influence the length and content of the written texts above
children’s phonological difficulties and spelling constraints. If vocabulary skills are important
in writing in addition to spelling, vocabulary knowledge should account for additional vari-
ance in the children’s written products and children matched for vocabulary levels should
produce written texts of a similar quality. Therefore, given the difficulties in oral language
experienced by children with SLI, both phonology and vocabulary should be examined and
children’s competence in spelling assessed. If accurate models of writing development are
to be advanced, it is important that both of these factors are considered in research studies.
A recent comparative study of dyslexic, language impaired and typically develop-
ing matched children demonstrated the ways in which different profiles of phonological
and nonphonological skills can impact on writing performance (Puranik, Lombardino &
Altmann, 2007). Participants with language impairments, but not participants with
dyslexia, produced fewer words and numbers of ideas than typically developing matched
peers. In contrast, both pupils with dyslexia and pupils with language impairments
produced more spelling and grammar errors than typically developing matched peers. The
authors argued that the differences between the language-impaired group and dyslexic
group rested in the nonphonological dimensions of text production that were impaired
in the children with oral language difficulties. They concluded that the children with
language difficulties were deficient in those aspects of oral language supporting the trans-
lating of ideas into appropriate text.

The current study

The current study develops previous work by exploring the written output of children with
SLI in comparison to a group of peers matched for levels of receptive vocabulary (VC group)
and a group of CA-matched peers (CA group). Children were assessed on a standardised
measure of writing (Wechsler Objective Language Dimensions [WOLD] writing scale) as an
indicator of the quality of their written text. These texts were then analysed to capture both
spelling errors and lexical diversity. Measures of lexical diversity included the total number
of words produced, number of different word roots used, verbs and nouns produced and
Type token ratio. Phonological aspects of writing were captured by examining children’s
spelling performance within the text. All the children were also given standardised language
assessments of phonology, and receptive vocabulary and a standardised measure of spelling
so that relationships between language, spelling and writing could be explored.
Identifying writing tasks that do not rely on pictorial prompts and are appealing to chil-
dren so that they can stimulate sufficient written text that can be analysed in detail and
also provide normative data is problematic. This is particularly true for children who are
challenged by the writing process. The measure used in the present study was chosen due
to its high reliability and the ease with which children can produce text to the oral prompt.
The task has been successfully shown to motivate typically developing children (Babayigit
& Stainthorp, 2011), and children with SLI to produce texts (Dockrell et al., 2007, 2009).
Specific research questions centered on (a) the pattern of performance in a narrative text
across the three groups in terms of text measures of lexical diversity and spelling and (b)
the relationships between phonological and nonphonological measures of oral language
and written language measures as assessed by the standardised assessment of writing. We

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

22 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

predicted depressed performance in writing and spelling for the children with SLI relative
to CA matches, given the existent literature. We further hypothesised that the children
with SLI would perform as well on the raw score of the standardised measure of written
language as their vocabulary-matched (VC) comparison group and demonstrate similar
performance on measures of lexical diversity given the key role that vocabulary has been
posited to play in text generation. Given the children’s reported levels of spelling prob-
lems, we predicted that their spelling would be more impaired than that of the VC-matched
group. Both oral language measures of vocabulary and phonology and written measures of
lexical diversity and spelling were predicted to contribute unique variance in the children’s
performance scores on the standardised measure of writing quality.

Method

Participants
The total sample consisted of 69 children, 23 children in 3 matched groups: 23 children
(17 boys and 6 girls), mean age 10:5 (range 10:2–10:9) who were diagnosed with an SLI
matched with 23 children for gender and vocabulary (VC) on the raw score of British Pic-
ture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS II; Dunn, Dunn, Whetton & Burley, 1997), mean age 7:11
(range 7:9–8:6) and 23 children matched for CA, mean age 10:5 (range 10:3–10:7).
Children with SLI were identified by professionals in language units and schools. For all
participants with SLI, their diagnosis was confirmed by assessment with a receptive and ex-
pressive subscale of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Revised (CELF-R;
Semel, Wiig & Secord, 1987, British Standardisation). All students with SLI had receptive
and expressive language scales scores of less than 7 indicating that all participants were
performing more than 1 SD below the mean and for many participants this was more than
2 SD below the mean (recalling sentences – M = 4.2, SD = 1.17; listening to paragraphs –
M = 5.7, SD = 1.3). In contrast, nonverbal ability scores on the British Abilities Scale
(BAS II; Elliot, Murray & Pearson, 1997) were within the average range (T score, M =
44.35, SD = 9.94). Language measures were significantly below nonverbal ability (recalling
sentences – t (22) = 4.92, p < .001; listening to paragraphs – t (22) = 5.16, p = .001). These
data confirmed the diagnosis of SLI. Participants demonstrated greater variability on the
vocabulary measure (BPVS II standard score; M = 84.65, SD = 7.68) but these scores were
significantly below those on the measure of nonverbal ability (t (22) = 3.8, p < .001).
The two groups of comparison children attended a local primary school. They had no
identified language or learning difficulties and were selected by teachers as having attained
average scores on curriculum assessments. The CA comparison children were matched
within an average age of 2 months and so did not differ from the children with SLI in age
(t (44) = 1.98, ns). The VC comparison children were matched with the children with SLI on
their raw score on the (BPVS II receptive vocabulary measure (t (44) = 0.48, ns). Scores for
the three groups of children on the language, reading and cognitive measures are presented
in Table 1. Z scores of standard scores are presented to allow comparison across tests.

Measures
Children with SLI only
Language (CELFUK; Peers, Lloyd & Foster, 1999 – recalling sentences and listening to
paragraphs). In the recalling sentences task, children are asked to imitate orally presented

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 23

Table 1. Means (SD) for children with SLI and their vocabulary (VC) and chronological age (CA) matches on
Z scores for vocabulary, nonverbal ability, spelling and phonology.
SLI VC CA
Z score M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance
Vocabulary (BPVS II) −1.02 −0.29 −0.08 F (2,68) = 15.94, p < .001, η2p = .33
(0.52) (1.16) (0.59) SLI < CA = LA
Nonverbal ability −0.29 0.30 0.35 F (2,68) = 4.48, p = .01, η2p = .2
(BAS II matrices)
(0.62) (0.99) (0.76) SLI < CA = LA
Spelling ability −1.09 0.34 0.50 F (2,68) = 18.63, p < .0001, η2p = .36
(BAS II spelling)
(0.98) (0.95) (0.95) SLI < CA = LA
Alliteration (PhAB) −1.12 −0.23 −0.14 F (2,62) = 36.890, p < .001, η2p = .35
(0.32) (0.45) (0.35) SLI < CA = LA
Rhyme (PhAB) −0.81 −0.23 −0.18 F (2,66) = 6.96, p = .002, η2p = .18
(0.83) (0.45) (0.54) SLI < CA = LA

sentences: reliability .82; validity with other expressive subscales .43–.49. Listening to para-
graphs requires the child to attend to a short paragraph and answer specific questions related
to the content: reliability .74; validity with other receptive scales .30–.43.

All participants
Vocabulary (BPVSII; Dunn et al., 1997). Children are shown four line drawings and asked
to choose the one that best illustrates a word spoken by the assessor: reliability .89; validity
with the expressive one-word vocabulary test .72.

Nonverbal ability (BAS II – Matrices subtest; Elliot et al., 1997). Children are presented
with a set of patterns where one pattern is incomplete. There is a choice of six responses
and children are required to point to the missing piece: reliability .85; validity with the
WISC-III performance scale .47.

Spelling (BAS II – Spelling Scale; Elliot et al., 1997). This scale provides a number of
phonetically regular and irregular words to assess the child’s ability to produce correct
spellings. Each item is first presented in isolation, then within the context of a sentence, and
finally in isolation. The child has to respond by writing the word: reliability .91.

Phonology (Phonological Assessment Battery, PhAB; Frederickson, Frith & Reason, 1997) –
rhyme and alliteration measures. For the rhyme test, children choose two words that rhyme
out of a choice of three (one irrelevant word and two that rhyme). The alliteration test is
similar with the exception that the chosen words have the same beginning sound: reliability
≥.80; validity with the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA; Neale, Christophers &
Whetton, 1997) reading accuracy .24–.56.

Written language (the WOLD: writing expression; Rust, 1996). The child is asked to write
a letter outlining his or her ideal house. Children are allowed 15 minutes to complete the

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

24 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

task. The written output can either be scored holistically or analytically: reliability .89,
correlation with Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised, Dictation =
0.72. The analytic scale was used to assess the children’s written text in relation to UK
standardised norms. This comprises six dimensions, each rated on a 4-point scale, which
are scored independently of each other: ideas and development; organisation, unity and
coherence; vocabulary; sentence structure and variety; grammar and usage; capitalisation
and punctuation. In addition, the written texts were coded for specific features of writing
(see section on coding below).

Procedure
All children were assessed individually in a quiet room at school. Informed consent from
schools, parents and children was provided prior to any testing. Testing occurred over 2
days. The first session involved a familiarisation with the researcher and an introduction to
the project. Children were allowed to terminate the session if they wished. All tests were
administered using the standard procedures in the manuals. Children were asked to read
back their written texts to prevent penalising children who were poor spellers and the tester
noted the unclear words on a separate sheet.

Text generation analysis of the WOLD writing measure

Analytical scoring of the WOLD. Reliability checks were performed for the analytical scor-
ing of the WOLD on 10% of writing samples by the two researchers. In the case of an
inter-rater disagreement, the scores were further discussed with the research team. Mean
reliability for the total score agreement was 92%.

Transcription, coding and reliability procedure. All written texts were transcribed exactly
and entered in a standard format using the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcript
conventions (SALT; Miller & Chapman, 2000). SALT allows for the automatic coding
of certain text features such as numbers of words, parts of speech and Type token ratio.
These can be automatically saved for use by SPSS. In addition, codes can be created to
suit the purpose of the study. The codes generated for the current study are listed below.
A research assistant was trained to use the SALT codings by the authors. A subset of texts
was used to practise and establish reliability. Following initial training and coding a further
10% of texts were randomly chosen to obtain a measure of inter-rater reliability for the items
assessed. Inter-rater reliability ranged from .67 to .96 for coded items across transcripts.

Lexical diversity. Lexical diversity was characterised by the number of different words and
word roots used, the Type token ratio and words in complete sentences. Children were not
penalised for errors in spelling in these calculations. We also examined the proportions of
verbs and nouns produced in the text.

Classification of spelling errors within scripts. Initially all spellings were determined to be
correct or incorrect. Those that were incorrect were further categorised according to pho-
nological and orthographic accuracy. A scoring scheme similar to that developed by Bruck
and Waters (1988) and Bruck, Treiman, Caravolas, Genesee and Cassar (1998) was used to
analyse error patterns. This scheme allowed for an analysis of error patterns when children
were producing different word types, rather than a standardised spelling assessment. A
spelling error was classified as either phonologically accurate or phonologically inaccurate

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 25

Table 2. Means and SDs for children with SLI and their vocabulary (VC) and chronological age (CA) matches
on spelling and phonology raw scores M (SD).
SLI VC CA
Raw score M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance
Spelling ability (BAS II spelling) 85.50 82.00 119.09 F (2,68) = 26.84, p < .001, η2p = .45
22.19 16.04 17.98 SLI = CA < LA
Alliteration (PhAB) 7.74 9.70 16.65 F (2,68) = 2.16, ns
2.16 23.36 0.88
Rhyme (PhAB) 13.00 16.48 16.26 F (2,68) = 4.74, p = .012, η2p = .13
5.49 3.02 4.03 SLI < CA = LA

or orthographically inaccurate. A phonologically accurate error was defined when it could

be pronounced like the target word by the use of grapheme–phoneme correspondences, for
example, sed instead of said. A phonologically inaccurate error was defined as not having
a possible sound to grapheme correspondence in English that corresponded to the pronun-
ciation of the target word, for example, kep instead of keep. An orthographically inaccurate
error was defined as a misspelling containing a sequence of letters that is illegal, which
would include positional restriction, for example, repyl instead of reply.

Results

General language and literacy measures

As predicted children with SLI performed poorly on standardised measures of spelling and
phonology; in all cases their Z scores were significantly lower than their VC and CA matches
(see Table 1). Raw score analyses of these measures produced a different pattern. These re-
sults are presented in Table 2. Here the children with SLI were matched with their VC peers
for spelling and alliteration raw scores but not rhyme. As expected, the mean raw scores for
the CA matches were higher for spelling and rhyme but not alliteration. In sum, there were
large and significant differences between the SLI group and comparison groups on their stan-
dard scores, but analysis of raw scores demonstrated parity in performance of the SLI and VC
group for both vocabulary, which was the match criterion, and single word spelling ability.

Text generation measures

The results on the children’s text generation task (WOLD) are presented in three parts.
Part 1 examines the level of children’s text generation performance in terms of their stan-
dardised and raw scores on the measure of writing performance. Part 2 provides a compara-
tive analysis of participants’ performance on the three levels of textual analysis: lexical
diversity, spelling and grammatical errors. Part 3 examines the relationships between the
quality of the children’s text measures of oral vocabulary and phonology and written lan-
guage measures of lexical diversity and spelling errors.

Part 1. The level of children’s text generation performance. Table 3 provides the means,
standard deviations and statistical results with regard to the WOLD analytic scoring scale.
As expected and consistent with their standard scores on other language and spelling

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

26 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

Table 3. WOLD analytic Z, raw and subscale raw scores M (SD) for children with SLI and their vocabulary
(VC) and chronological age (CA) matches.
SLI VC CA
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance
WOLD Z score −1.11 −0.46 0.78 F (2,68) = 35.96, p < .001, η2p = .52
(0.63) (0.81) (0.84) SLI< VC = CA
Total analytic raw score 9.52 9.70 16.04 F (2,68) = 41.63, p < .001, η2p = .56
(2.43) (3.01) (2.82) SLI = VC < CA
Ideas and development 1.57 1.57 2.39 F (2,68) = 12.00, p < .001, η2p = .27
(0.66) (0.59) (0.72) SLI = VC < CA
Organisation and 1.43 1.87 2.78 F (2,68) = 25.50, p < .001, η2p = .44
coherence
(0.66) (0.76) (0.52) SLI = VC < CA
Vocabulary 1.48 1.52 2.65 F (2,68) = 29.63, p < .001, η2p = .47
(0.59) (0.51) (0.65) SLI = VC < CA
Sentence structure 1.35 1.39 2.43 F (2,68) = 35.17, p < .001, η2p = .52
(0.49) (0.50) (0.51) SLI = VC < CA
Grammar 1.87 1.78 2.83 F (2,68) = 15.04, p < .001, η2p = .31
(0.81) (0.74) (0.58) SLI = VC < CA
Capitalisation 1.83 1.87 3.09 F (2,68) = 11.48, p < .001, η2p = .26
(0.78) (1.18) (1.04) SLI = VC < CA

measures the children with SLI were significantly poorer than either of the two comparison
groups on the WOLD Z and they were performing significantly worse than would be ex-
pected given their age on this standardised assessment of writing quality.
The results from the analytical scoring scale of the WOLD however showed a different, but
consistent, pattern between groups across all measures. For all subscales, the CA group out-
performed both the VC and SLI groups and there were no statistically significant differences
between the VC and SLI groups on any of the scoring categories. This confirmed our hypoth-
esis that the SLI group would be matched in their qualitative level of text generation with
their vocabulary-matched peers while performing more poorly than their same-aged peers.

Part 2. Text generation performance

Lexical diversity. We next examined characteristics of the text that reflected measures
of vocabulary. Table 4 provides means, standard deviations and statistical results for the
measures of lexical diversity in the children’s written texts. As the table shows, children
with SLI produced statistically significantly fewer words and used fewer word roots than
their CA-matched peers but showed no difference in comparison to their VC peers. Further
differences in the text measures were not evident in comparisons between the three groups.
Single word measures, but not measures of sentence length, use of nouns or verbs or Type
token ratio, differentiated the CA participants from those with SLI and the VC-matched group.

Spelling within texts. Spelling data collated from within the WOLD texts are presented
in Tables 5 and 6. The proportion of CA group spelling errors was very small compared

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 27

Table 4. Mean (SD) for text measures for children with SLI and their vocabulary (VC) and chronological age
(CA) matches.
SLI VC CA
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance
Total word count 43.84 55.23 127.57 F (2,68) = 33.884, p < .0005, η2p = .48
(28.08) (28.29) (54.49) SLI = VC < CA
Number of different 11.13 23.90 63.25 F (2,68) = 39.059, p < .0005, η2p = .52
word roots
(28.09) (42.53) (82,84) SLI = VC < CA
Mean length of 7.10 9.00 12.82 F (2,68) = 2.381, ns
sentence in words
(14.92) (13.5) (15.98)
Type token ratio 0.49 0.68 0.58 F (2,68) = .874, ns
(0.91) (0.80) (0.70)
Proportion of nouns 0.19 0.19 0.17 F (2,68) = .943, ns
(0.27) (0.28) (0.23)
Proportion of verbs 0.08 0.06 0.09 F (2,68) = 1.557, ns
(0.15) (0.11) (0.13)

Table 5. Mean (SD) for spelling errors for children with SLI and their vocabulary (VC) and chronological age
(CA) matches.

SLI VC CA
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Significance
Total number of spelling 6.00 12.08 1.61 F (2,68) = 23.86, p < .001, η2p = .42
errors in text
(5.07) (7.24) (1.41) VC > SLI > CA
Proportion of total spelling 0.19 0.23 0.02 F (2,68) = 18.43, p < .001, η2p = .36
errors of text
(0.18) (0.13) (0.02) SLI = VC > CA
Proportion of errors that are 0.16 0.18 0.48 F (2,68) = 7.77, p = .001, η2p = .52
phonologically accurate
(0.25) (0.18) (0.41) SLI = VC < CA
Proportion of errors that are 0.58 0.68 0.11 F (2, 68) = 28.509, p < .001, η2p = .49
orthographically inaccurate
(0.31) (0.26) (0.19) SLI = VC > CA
Proportion of errors that are 0.23 0.10 0.39 F (2,68) = 4.25, p = .02, η2p = .13
phonologically inaccurate
(0.27) (0.21) (0.44) VC < SLI = CA

to the SLI and VC groups and many scripts from the CA group had only single items to
categorise. The children with SLI and the younger VC group, in comparison, had a high
rate of spelling errors, with about one word in five being misspelled in the text.
In contrast to the similarity between the SLI and VC group on lexical measures, children
in the vocabulary-matched group produced significantly more errors than either the SLI

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

28 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

Table 6. Partial correlations between text generation and oral and written measures controlling for age and
text length.
    Number of
Writing Vocabulary Alliteration Rhyme different Type
WOLD BPVS II PhAB PhAB word roots token ratio
Oral language Vocabulary .386** –
measures BPVS II
Alliteration PhAB .133 .081 –
** **
Rhyme PhAB .342 .355 .179 –
* **
Written text Number of different .322 .379 −.073 .358** –
measures word roots
Type token ratio .004 .168 −.066 .034 .346** –
Total spelling errors −.505*** −.159 .117 −.315** −.145 −.018
*
p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 7. Summary of final model of multiple regression analysis for all pupils’ writing scores (Total WOLD
analytic raw score).
Variable B Standard error B Beta T p
Group 1.661 0.419 0.334 3.96 <.001
Rhyme PhAB 0.061 0.071 0.067 0.86 ns
Vocabulary BPVS II 0.102 0.029 0.279 3.51 .001
Proportion of spelling errors −12.09 2.03 −0.468 −5.94 <.001
Proportion of different word roots −2.95 1.23 −0.182 −2.40 .020

group or the CA-matched group. However, given the variability in text lengths produced
by the different groups of children, the spelling errors and patterns of errors were analysed
as proportions. The SLI and VC-matched group produced statistically similar proportions
of errors and both the SLI and VC groups produced significantly more errors than those
produced by the CA-matched group. The CA group produced significantly more phono-
logically accurate errors while in contrast those in the SLI and VC group produced more
orthographically inaccurate errors and more phonologically inaccurate errors; the SLI and
VC groups did not differ significantly in their proportions of these categories. In sum, for
both lexical performance and spelling, the SLI group was consistently similar to their VC-
matched peers and both of these groups performed worse than the CA-matched peers.

Part 3. Relationships between spelling, written vocabulary and writing products. Table 6
presents the correlations, controlling for age and text length, between the oral language
and written language measures and the children’s written text. As predicted, there were sig-
nificant correlations between the oral language measure of phonology and vocabulary and
text generation quality. There were also significant correlations between written language
measures of vocabulary and spelling and the children’s text generation quality.
Linear stepwise regression was used to examine the oral and written language factors
that contributed to the pupil’s WOLD writing scores. All written measures were propor-
tion scores to account for different word lengths in the text. We examined whether written
measures of vocabulary measured by the proportion of different word roots in each text

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 29

Table 8. Summary of final model of multiple regression analysis for writing scores (total WOLD analytic raw
score) for pupils with SLI and their vocabulary-matched peers.
Variable B Standard error B Beta T p
Group 0.833 0.737 0.156 1.13 ns
Rhyme PhAB 0.039 0.078 0.072 0.50 ns
Vocabulary BPVS II 0.094 0.041 0.297 2.26 .029
Proportion of spelling errors −10.21 2.253 −0.592 −4.53 .001
Proportion of different word roots −1.617 1.28 −0.178 −1.27 ns

and the proportion of spelling errors were significant explanatory variables of overall text
generation quality (total WOLD analytical raw score) after entering oral language meas-
ures (vocabulary and phonology). Group was entered first in the regression, followed by
rhyme, vocabulary, proportion of spelling errors in the next step and proportion of number
of different word roots as the final step. A significant model emerged, F (5,68) = 30.00,
p < .001, adjusted R2 = .68. A summary of the final regression model is presented in Table 7.
Group was a significant explanatory factor in the model but the addition of vocabulary
(r2 change .08) followed by proportion of spelling errors (r2 change .16) and proportion of
different word roots (r2 change .03) were also significant in the model but phonology was
not. Overall, the analysis points to the importance of both lexical knowledge and spelling
in our measure of text production. Given the pattern of differences we had identified be-
tween the three groups, we posited that the group effect reported above in the regression
was accounted for by the inclusion of the CA-matched children. As such, we repeated the
regression model including only the SLI and VC-matched participants. A significant model
emerged, F (4,45) = 6.327, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .33. A summary of the final regression
model is presented in Table 8. Table 8 shows, as in the previous model, that phonology
was not significant. Moreover, in this model the number of different word roots or group
were no longer significant predictors of writing. In contrast to the previous model, and as
predicted, only oral vocabulary and proportion of spelling errors remained significant (r2
change vocabulary .04; r2 change spelling .28). Thus even at the early stages of writing,
both vocabulary and spelling were independently related to the measure of text generation
quality in English.
To further examine the relations of these two language dimensions, we ran two further
regressions. The first regression examined the variance explained in spelling by our two pho-
nological measures (alliteration and rhyme) and the role of the nonphonological measure (vo-
cabulary) on the number of different word roots. In both cases, significant models emerged
with rhyme predicting spelling, F (2,45) = 7.732, p = .001, adjusted R2 = .23 and vocabulary
predicting number of different word roots, F (1,45) = 7.649, p = .008, adjusted R2 = .13.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the text generation skills of children with SLI in
comparison to CA peers and peers matched for vocabulary level. Standardised measures
of phonology and spelling were collected to elucidate the differences between the groups.
Patterns of written text production in relation to oral and written language measures were
examined to assess their impact on the pupils’ final written products. Current developmental

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

30 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

models of writing and the difficulties experienced with SLI predicted that poor phonological
skills leading to poor spelling skills would explain most of the variance in writing perfor-
mance. The potential contribution of other language factors above spelling competence for
this population was unclear although a longitudinal study had shown that for participants
with SLI both vocabulary and spelling were independent predictors of writing competence
at age 16 (Dockrell et al., 2009).
As predicted, children with SLI performed significantly below the norm on all stan-
dardised measures of vocabulary, phonology, spelling and writing and these standard
scores were significantly different from both comparison groups of typically developing
children. However, raw scores of spelling and alliteration, but not rhyme scores did not
differ between the SLI and VC group. Participants with SLI and the VC-matched partici-
pants produced poorer quality texts and fewer words in their texts than the CA-matched
group. Thus, in terms of narrative text generation as measured by the WOLD, children with
SLI performed at a commensurate level to their vocabulary-matched peers, who were on
average 2 years younger, and significantly poorer than their chronological matched peers.
These data confirm the challenges of producing written text for children with SLI.
By corollary, we found no differences between those participants with SLI and the VC
group in their spelling performance or on measures of lexical diversity in the texts they
produced but both groups differed from CA matches. The children’s spelling errors in the
text generated were examined in detail. Children in the CA-matched group made very few
errors. In contrast both the children with SLI and their vocabulary matches made errors, on
average, in one of every five words produced and the proportion of spelling errors did not
differ between the groups. Participants with SLI and their VC matches produced the same
proportion of phonologically accurate and orthographically inaccurate errors. However,
despite the poorer phonological skills of the SLI group they produced less phonologically
inaccurate errors than their VC-matched peers. This may reflect their older age and thus
their greater experience in the classroom of being tutored to ‘sound out’ their spelling at-
tempts. These attempts though have not translated into any greater spelling accuracy than
their younger vocabulary-matched peers. These spelling results confirm previous studies
and suggest that parity in performance in text production reflects the fact that language age
matches may also be matched on single word spelling ability.
Regression analyses identified oral language vocabulary and written language spelling
as significant predictors in the children’s writing. Importantly, there was no effect of group
when only the children with SLI and their VC matches were included in the regression,
indicating a delay in writing in children with SLI at this stage in the development of their
writing skills. These results are also consistent with the simple view of writing where both
spelling and oral language interact to support effective written text generation (Berninger
et al., 2002; Berninger & Amtmann, 2003).
In our study, both the children’s spelling errors and their vocabulary levels predicted
compositional quality as measured by the WOLD. Consistent with the key role of language
in constraining the development of writing in the children with SLI and the vocabulary-
matched group our results showed that spelling performance was predicted by oral rhyme
skills and that the number of different word roots in the written texts was predicted by
receptive vocabulary scores. These results demonstrate that in children with SLI both
phonological and nonphonological difficulties with language impacted on text generation
processes and these were major constraints on their writing.
Our results have shown that vocabulary is a critical building block for written language
(Green et al., 2003) and confirm previous research in this area showing that vocabulary was

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 31

a key mediator in the performance of older children with SLI (Dockrell et al., 2007, 2009).
Thus, the text generation processes of children with SLI were impaired with respect to
their typically developing peers, clearly demonstrating the impact of poor language skills
on writing ability. However, we have also shown, for this writing task, that for the children
with SLI their writing skills were commensurate with children who had equivalent vocabu-
lary and spelling levels.
The research mirrors the separable effects of oral language and transcription on the pro-
duction of written text identified for typically developing writers (Abbott & Berninger,
1993; Berninger & Swanson, 1994) and explains the performance of the children with
SLI in the current study. At this point in development and for this type of writing task,
the writing difficulties of children with SLI were captured by their oral vocabulary skills
and spelling. This pattern may change over time when, for typically developing children,
text measures of language become more important (Shanahan, 2006). Spelling longer, and
more morphologically complex words requires the use of phonological, morphological
and orthographic knowledge (Silliman, Bahr & Peters, 2006). Over time the combined de-
mands may provide greater challenges for pupils with SLI. Difficulties with spelling could
therefore impact on wider text generation skills as the writer struggles to retrieve spellings,
thereby affecting overall writing speed and the ideas presented. The spelling problems ex-
perienced by the children with SLI are predicted to have an impact on the other processes
required to produce text for extended time, above and beyond the transcription demands
placed on their typically developing peers.
The integration of multiplicative effects on writing are not yet well understood beyond
the prediction that a limited working memory capacity system will impact on managing
multiple tasks that require much processing effort. The wider effect of poor spelling skill
partly explains why the compositions of children with SLI continue to be rated as shorter,
poorer in content and less adequate than peers throughout schooling. In addition their lan-
guage limitations will compromise their attempts to write. Both factors are predicted to
interact for these children. The ways in which they interact at different points in develop-
ment and for different writing tasks requires further study.

Limitations of the current study

The current study examined the products of writing and contributes to our understanding
of the ways in which phonological and nonphonological limitations impact on the writing
process that supports the production of written text. We have shown similarities between the
children with SLI and their vocabulary-matched peers in all aspects of their written products
created from an oral prompt. However, this does not rule out potential differences in process
between the two groups (Mackie et al., in press). Writing is a complex task and different
writing tasks place different demands on the cognitive system (Van Hell, Verhoeven & van
Beijsterveldt, 2008). While written products may appear similar the cognitive processes
supporting their production may differ. For example, the writing task we employed had a
15-minute time limit (Koutsoftas & Gray, 2012). We did not measure what the children
actually did within that 15-minute period. It could be the case that the children with SLI
were slower at spelling, paused more often when writing more complex language or pro-
duced shorter written language bursts (Connelly, Dockrell, Walter & Critten, 2012; Hayes
& Chenoweth, 2007; Sumner, Connelly & Barnett, 2012). Future research should examine
comparisons between groups of children challenged by writing with carefully matched con-
trol groups on both the process and the product of writing across different writing tasks.

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

32 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

Final comments
Our study has demonstrated that when asked to generate written texts from an oral prompt
the same constraints on the quality of the written products of 10-year-old children with SLI
were also found in a group of typically developing younger children matched on vocabulary
and spelling. Children with SLI were performing significantly worse in writing than their
same-age peers and while the constraints on their writing delay were predictable these con-
straints have implications for teaching and intervention strategies. Further research is now
needed to examine the ways in which these phonological and nonphonological constraints
can provide the basis for interventions to improve the writing of children with SLI so that
their writing products begin to resemble their same-age peers in this vital educational skill.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge support of the Leverhulme Foundation, Clare Mackie,

Suzanah Buck, Louise Slator and Sophia Poulikakos for data collection and Anne Crowther
for data transcription and analysis. We are grateful to Jessie Ricketts for comments on an
earlier version of this paper and all the children who participated in the study.

References

Babayigit, S. & Stainthorp, R. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitive-linguistic skills and literacy
skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 169–189.
doi:10.1037/a0021671
Beard, R. (1986). Children’s writing in the primary school. Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton.
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Nagy, W. & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and mor-
phological awareness in Grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141–163. doi:10.1007/
s10936-009-9130-6
Berninger, V.W. & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression 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 difficulties. New York: Guilford Press.
Berninger, V.W. & Swanson, H.L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flowers’ model of skilled writing to explain
developing writing. In E.C. Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice. Children’s writ-
ing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing. (Vol. 2, pp. 1–30). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E. & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental
skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing, 4(3), 257–280. doi: 10.1007/bf01027151
Bishop, D.V.M. (2006). What causes specific language impairment in children? Current Directions in Psychologi-
cal Science, 15(5), 217–221.
Bishop, D.V.M. & Clarkson, B. (2003). Written language as a window into residual language deficits: A study of
children with persistent and residual speech and language impairments. Cortex, 39(2), 215–237.
Bishop, D.V.M. & Snowling, M.J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or
different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858–886.
Bruck, M., Treiman, R., Caravolas, M., Genesee, F. & Cassar, M. (1998). Spelling skills of children in whole lan-
guage and phonics classrooms. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(4), 669–684. doi: 10.1017/s0142716400010419
Bruck, M. & Waters, G. (1988). An analysis of the spelling errors of children who differ in their reading and spell-
ing skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(1), 77–92. doi: 10.1017/s0142716400000461
Caravolas, M., Hulme, C. & Snowling, M.J. (2001). The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 751–774. doi:10.1006/jmla.200.2785
Clarke-Klein, S.M. (1994). Expressive phonological deficiencies: Impact on spelling development. Topics in
Language Disorders, 14(2), 40–55.
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J.E. & Barnett, A. (2011). Children challenged by writing due to language and motor
difficulties. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of writing handbook: Past, present, and future con-
tributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. (pp. 217–245). New York: Psychology Press.

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

DOCKRELL and CONNELLY 33

Connelly, V., Dockrell, J.E., Walter, K. & Critten, S. (2012). Predicting the quality of composition and written lan-
guage bursts from oral language, spelling, and handwriting skills in children with and without specific language
impairment. Written Communication, 29 (3), 278–302. doi:10.1177/0741088312451109
Conti-Ramsden, G. & Botting, N. (1999). Classification of children with specific language impairment: Longitu-
dinal considerations. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 42(5), 1195–1204.
Dockrell, J.E. (2009). Causes of delay and difficulty in the production of written text. In D.M.R. Beard, M.M.
Nystrand & J.J. Riley (Eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development. (pp. 489–505). London: Sage.
Dockrell, J.E., Lindsay, G. & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact of specific language impairment on adolescents’
written text. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 427–446.
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.M., Dunn, L.M., Whetton, C. & Burley, J. (1997). British Picture Vocabulary Scale (rev. edn). Windsor:
NFER-Nelson.
Ebbels, S.H., Dockrell, J.E. & van der Lely, H.K.J. (2012). Non-word repetition in adolescents with specific
language impairment (SLI). International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47(3), 257–273.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00099.x
Elliott, C.D., Murray, D.J. & Pearson, L.S. (1997). British Abilities Scales II: Matrices. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Fey, M.E., Catts, H.W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, J. & Zhang, X.Y. (2004). Oral and written story composi-
tion skills of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 47(6),
1301–1318. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/098)
Frederickson, N., Frith, U. & Reason, R. (1997). Phonological Assessment Battery: Standardisation edition.
Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Gillam, R.B. & Johnston, J.R. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language learning impaired
and normally achieving school age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35(6), 1303–1315.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 99, 445–476.
Green, L., McCutchen, D., Schwiebert, C., Quinlan, T., Eva-Wood, A. & Juelis, J. (2003). Morphological develop-
ment in children's writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 752–761. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.752
Koutsoftas, A. & Gray, S. (2012). A structural equation model of the writing process in typically-developing sixth
grade children. Reading and Writing, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9399-y
Larkin, R.F. & Snowling, M.J. (2008). Comparing phonological skills and spelling abilities in children with
reading and language impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(1),
111–124. doi:10.1080/13682820601178584
Lewis, B.A. & Freebairn, L. (1992). Residual effects of preschool phonology disorders in grade school, adoles-
cence, and adulthood. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35(4), 819–831.
Mackie, C. & Dockrell, J.E. (2004). The nature of written language deficits in children with SLI. Journal of Speech
Language and Hearing Research, 47(6), 1469–1483. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/109)|issn 1092–4388
Mackie, C.J., Dockrell, J. & Lindsay, G. (in press). An evaluation of the written texts of children with SLI: The
contributions of oral language, reading and phonological short-term memory. Reading and Writing: An Inter-
disciplinary Journal.
McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Jour-
nal of Memory and Language, 25(4), 431–444.
McCutchen, D., Covill, A., Hoyne, S.H. & Mildes, K. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of
translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 256–266. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.86.2.256
Mehta, P.D., Foorman, B.R., Branum-Martin, L. & Taylor, W.P. (2005). Literacy as a unidimensional multilevel
construct: Validation, sources of influence, and implications in a longitudinal study in Grades 1 to 4. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 9(2), 85–116.
Messer, D., Dockrell, J.E. & Murphy, N. (2004). Relation between naming and literacy in children with word-finding
difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 462–470. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.462|issn 0022-0663
Miller, J.F. & Chapman, R. (2000). SALT: Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts, Research version 6.1.
Madison, WI: Language Analysis Lab, University of Wisconsin.
Miller, B., Molfese, V. & Berninger, V. (2011). Introduction to special issue on writing. Reading and Writing,
24(2), 117–119. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9268-5
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J. & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical
skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psy-
chology, 40(5), 665–681. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.665
Myhill, D. & Fisher, R. (2010). Editorial: Writing development: Cognitive, sociocultural, linguistic perspectives.
Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 1–3. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01428.x

Copyright © 2013 UKLA

34 TEXT GENERATION IN CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS

Nash, M. & Donaldson, M.L. (2005). Word learning in children with vocabulary deficits. Journal of Speech Lan-
guage and Hearing Research, 48(2), 439–458. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/030)
Nation, K., Cocksey, J., Taylor, J.S.H. & Bishop, D.V.M. (2010). A longitudinal investigation of early reading
and language skills in children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
51(9), 1031–1039. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02254.x
Ogle, J.W. (1867). Aphasia and agraphia. Rep. Med. Res. Counsel of St Georges Hospital (Lond.), 2, 39.
Olinghouse, N.G. (2008). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students.
Reading and Writing, 21(1–2), 3–26. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1
Olinghouse, N.G. & Leaird, J.T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing qual-
ity in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22(5), 545–565. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z
Peers, I.S., Lloyd, P. & Foster, C. (1999). British Standardisation of the CELF. The Psychological Corporation's
Speech and Language Assessment. Available at: http://www.tpcweb.com.
Perera, K. (1984). Children’s writing and reading: Analysing classroom language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Puranik, C.S., Lombardino, L.J. & Altmann, L.J. (2007). Writing through retellings: An exploratory study of
language-impaired and dyslexic populations. Reading and Writing, 20(3), 251–272.
Rust, J. (1996). The manual of the Wechsler Objective Language Dimensions (WOLD): UK edition. London: The
Psychological Corporation.
Scott, C.M. & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and
expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech Language
and Hearing Research, 43(2), 324–339.
Semel, E., Wiig, E.H. & Secord, W. (1987). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Revised. Sidcup:
Psychological Corporation.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading and writing development. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham
& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research. (pp. 171–183). New York: Guilford Press.
Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R. H. & Peters, M. L. (2006). Spelling patterns in preadolescents with atypical language
skills: Phonological, morphological, and orthographic factors. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 93–123.
Sumner, E., Connelly, V. & Barnett, A. (2012). Children with dyslexia are slow writers because they pause more
often and not because they are slow at handwriting execution. Reading & Writing. Online First™. doi:10.1007/
s11145-012-9403-6
Treiman, R. (1991). Children's spelling errors on syllable-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 83(3), 346–360. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.83.3.346
Van Hell, J., Verhoeven, L. & van Beijsterveldt, L. (2008). Pause time patterns in writing narrative and expository
texts by children and adults. Discourse Processes, 45, 406–427.
Wagner, R.K., Puranik, C.S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L.G., Tschinkel, E. et al. (2011). Modeling the
development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 203–220. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7
Wells, G. & Chang, G. (1986). From speech to writing: Some evidence on the relationship between oracy and
literacy. In A. Wilkinson (Ed.), From speech to writing: Some evidence on the relationship between oracy and
literacy. (pp. 109–131). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Windsor, J., Scott, C.M. & Street, C.K. (2000). Verb and noun morphology in the spoken and written language
of children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 43(6),
1322–1336.

Julie E. Dockrell is Professor of Psychology and Special Needs at the Institute of Education in
London. Her research interests are in the area of children with language difficulties and their literacy
development.

Vincent Connelly is Reader in Psychology at Oxford Brookes University. His research interests are
in the development of writing in atypical populations and the constraints on writing development in
typically developing writers.

Received 16 October 2012; revised version received 5 November 2012.

Address for correspondence: Professor Julie E. Dockrell, Department of Psychology

& Human Development, Institute of Education, University of London, London WC1H
0AL, UK. E-mail: vconnelly@brookes.ac.uk

Copyright © 2013 UKLA