1027537

research-article2021
ECXXXX10.1177/00144029211027537Exceptional ChildrenDatchuk et al.

Research Syntheses
Exceptional Children

Effects of Writing Interventions

 ­
2022, Vol. 88(2) 145–162
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines :
https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211027537
on the Level and Trend of Total sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00144029211027537
Words Written: A Meta-Analysis journals.sagepub.com/home/ecx

Shawn M. Datchuk1, Derek B. Rodgers2, Kyle Wagner3,

Bridget O. Hier4, and Christopher T. Moore5

Abstract
We estimated effects of writing interventions on the level and trend of writing fluency—rate
of total words written over time—by students with and without disabilities. Using mixed-
effects regression and an information-theoretic ranking of competing models, we synthesized
results of 42 single-case experimental design studies with a total of 205 students. A variety of
acquisition and fluency interventions were used across studies, such as self-regulated strategy
development and timed practice with performance feedback. We found acquisition and fluency
interventions produced an increase in level and a gradual increase in trend of total words
written per minute. Students receiving fluency intervention tended to have higher levels of
performance across experimental phases (i.e., baseline, intervention, and postintervention), but
students receiving acquisition had steeper upward trends. In addition, we found higher levels of
total words written per minute on writing tasks with brief time limits (i.e., ≤10 min) and in the
writing of older students.

Writing is important to academic success.
Across content areas, students are expected to
complete a variety of writing tasks to learn
new content and express their understanding
(Ray et al., 2016). Unfortunately, many stu-
dents with and without disabilities struggle to
develop proficient writing. For instance,
approximately 96% of eighth-grade students
with disabilities and 71% of eighth-grade stu-
dents without disabilities scored basic or
below—displaying only a partial mastery of
fundamental writing skills—on the most
recent administration of the writing subtest of
the National Assessment of Education Prog-
ress in 2011 (U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Education Sciences, National Cen-
ter for Educational Statistics, 2011). In addi-
tion to disability status, writing proficiency
has been found to vary by other demographic
variables, such as age and gender (Fearrington
et al., 2014; Keller-Margulis et al., 2015).
Writing difficulties stem in part from issues
with writing fluency—the degree to which
text is transcribed and generated with ease and
automaticity (Ritchey et al., 2016). Writing
fluency plays an important cognitive role in
proficient writing. According to the simple
view of writing (Berninger & Amtmann,
2003), proficient writing results from at least
three composite areas: text generation, tran-
scription, and executive functions. Text gen-
eration is the composition of connected text
into phrases, sentences, and composition.
Transcription is the handwriting or typing of
letters into correctly spelled words. Execu-
tive functions help coordinate transcription
and text generation within the writing process
1
University of Iowa
2
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
3
University of Findlay
4
Syracuse University
5
Minneapolis Public Schools
Corresponding Author:
Shawn Datchuk, University of Iowa, 254N Lindquist
Center, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Email: shawn-datchuk@uiowa.edu
146
(i.e., planning, translating, and revising) and
entail aspects of self-regulation, attention,
and writing strategies. When transcription or
text-generation skills are fluent (i.e., pro-
duced with ease or automaticity), they are
transferred to long-term memory, freeing up
working and short-term memory to attend to
other aspects of a writing task and overall
writing development (Graham, 2018). Indeed,
research suggests writing fluency in tran-
scription and text generation is related to
gains in writing quantity and quality (Datchuk
& Kubina, 2013; Kim et al., 2018).
Writing Fluency
Measurement
Measurement of writing fluency is a recom-
mended aspect of schoolwide systems, such as
response to intervention, to prevent and iden-
tify writing difficulties (Shapiro, 2011). Argu-
ably, the most well-researched and widely
used writing fluency task is curriculum-based
measurement of written expression (CBM-
WE; McMaster et al., 2020). Following stan-
dard CBM-WE procedures, students are
provided with a writing prompt (e.g., story
starter or picture) and then are given specific
time limits for planning and writing. A time
limit of 1 min is typical for planning, and a time
limit of 1.5 to 10 min is typical for writing
(Romig et al., 2020). Brief time limits increase
the likelihood that student performance is
indicative of writing fluency—automaticity
or speed of transcription and text generation
(Ritchey et al., 2016)—as students are likely to
engage in sustained writing and devote little
time to executive functions or self-regulation,
such as stopping to consider plans and revision.
Measurement of writing fluency is a
recommended aspect of schoolwide
systems, such as response to
intervention . . .
One commonly used writing fluency met-
ric is total words written (TWW), which is a
broad indicator of transcription and text-gen-
eration speed. It is the number of words pro-
duced regardless of whether they follow
conventions of spelling, semantics, or syntax
Exceptional Children 88(2)
(Ritchey et al., 2016). Although early
research established a relationship between
TWW and writing quality (Deno et al.,
1982), recent research demonstrates that of
the common writing metrics—such as cor-
rect writing sequences (CWS) and words
spelled correctly (WSC)—TWW has the
weakest criterion validity (r = .37; Romig
et al., 2017) and some of the lowest sensitiv-
ity and specificity to identify struggling writ-
ers (Furey et al., 2016). In contrast, writing
metrics based on CWS, which accounts for
spelling, capitalization, grammar, syntax,
and punctuation, typically have stronger psy-
chometric properties, such as criterion valid-
ity (r = .51 to .60; Romig et al., 2017).
Despite the limitations of its technical fea-
tures, TWW is a time-efficient, simple met-
ric to score with little training (Gansle et al.,
2004); in fact, students can even learn to
score TWW, cutting down on teachers’
assessment time (e.g., Koenig et al., 2016).
Performance on CBM-WE, as well as any
writing task with a standard time limit for
writing, can be summarized in two ways: (a)
level, which represents either a single datum
point of performance or an average of data
points across time, and (b) trend, which is a
slope summarizing growth across time (Riley-
Tillman et al., 2020). Both level and trend can
be compared with set criteria (e.g., goal or
aim) in order to judge the adequacy of instruc-
tion or intervention. For instance, the trend of
writing performance can be compared with a
national norm: An average student is likely to
gain approximately 0.17 to 0.47 TWW per
week on 3-min CBM-WE probes (AIMSweb,
2016). Although the limited growth students
make in TWW on CBM-WE probes may sug-
gest insufficiency with the measure or metric,
it is also possible that universal writing
instruction insufficiently targets writing pro-
duction (Cutler & Graham, 2008).
Writing Fluency Intervention
Writing interventions can be categorized based
on their intended outcome of acquisition and
fluency (Codding et al., 2019). Categories of
acquisition and fluency have typically been
applied to math and reading interventions
Datchuk et al.
(e.g., Maki et al., 2020; Parker & Burns, 2014);
however, there is an emerging line of research
on writing interventions (Parker et al., 2011).
Acquisition interventions are intended to
increase an area of low proficiency (e.g., low
level of TWW) through instruction that relies
heavily on modeling, prompting, initial prac-
tice, and error correction (Codding et al.,
2019). Alternatively, fluency interventions are
intended to increase the speed or rate of per-
formance (e.g., increase level or trend of
TWW) through practice opportunities and
performance feedback (Parker & Burns,
2014). Fluency interventions often incorporate
acquisition instructional techniques, but a
defining characteristic of fluency interventions
is the use of timed practice with an explicit
focus on increasing automaticity, such as
10-min practice trials composing persuasive
essays (Mason et al., 2013). Because single-
case experimental designs (SCEDs) feature
student-level data across time, results from
these studies can be used to determine level
and trend effects of acquisition and fluency
interventions on writing fluency or TWW
(Riley-Tillman et al., 2020).
Based on prior reviews of the SCED writ-
ing intervention literature (e.g., Ciullo &
Reutebuch, 2013; Graham, 2006; Graham
et al., 2013; Rogers & Graham, 2008), more is
known about effects of intervention on writ-
ing length (i.e., count of TWW on writing
tasks without a specified time limit) than writ-
ing fluency (i.e., rate of TWW on writing
tasks with a specified time limit). Further-
more, prior reviews (e.g., Rogers & Graham,
2008) have primarily used overlap effect size
metrics, such as percentage of nonoverlap-
ping data, that are insensitive to changes in
level and trend (Wolery et al., 2010). Results
from prior reviews do suggest two types of
acquisition interventions—graphic organizer
instruction (Ciullo & Reutebuch, 2013) and
self-regulated strategy development (SRSD;
Graham, 2006; Graham et al., 2013; Rogers &
Graham, 2008)—can improve writing length.
Graphic organizer instruction and SRSD
are primarily used to improve aspects of text
generation, such as genre elements (e.g., per-
suasive essay parts) and holistic quality, in
147
addition to improvements in self-regulation of
the writing process. In graphic organizer
instruction, students engage in deliberate
planning of a writing genre by completing a
visual scaffold (e.g., fill in the blanks of a per-
suasive essay). Procedures of SRSD are simi-
lar but broader in scope; it entails (a) strategy
instruction on how to plan, compose, and
revise a genre of writing (e.g., narrative story)
and (b) self-regulation components of goal
setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and
self-reinforcement. As part of acquiring writ-
ing skills through SRSD, students set goals
for writing (e.g., genre elements or holistic
quality) and self-monitor their progress.
Effects of fluency intervention have typi-
cally not been reported in prior reviews of
writing interventions. Results from several
studies do suggest timed practice involving
text generation and self-regulation can improve
writing fluency (Hier & Eckert, 2016; Hoover
et al., 2012; Koenig et al., 2016; Mason et al.,
2013). Timed practice involves writing during
a brief time limit (e.g., 3 min or 10 min),
receiving performance feedback (e.g., TWW
or CWS), goal setting, and graphing of writing
performance. In addition, timed practice can
be paired with initial instruction, such as
SRSD, to increase speed or rate of text genera-
tion of genre elements and writing quality
(Hoover et al., 2012; Mason et al., 2013).
Compared with intervention effects on
writing fluency of TWW, more is known
regarding level and trend effects on CWS. In a
recently published meta-analysis (Datchuk,
Wagner, et al., 2020), researchers reported
that writing interventions produced little to no
change in level and a gradual change in trend
of CWS. On average, students gained approx-
imately 0.39 CWSs per minute for each inter-
vention session or four CWSs per minute for
every 10 intervention sessions. Writing inter-
ventions included several acquisition and flu-
ency interventions, such as SRSD, explicit
instruction, and timed practice with perfor-
mance feedback. Older students had higher
levels of CWS per minute compared with
younger students, but no significant differ-
ences were found for disability status, gender,
and race. Because CWS is scored differently
148
than TWW, CWS summarizes unique aspects
of text writing not accounted for by TWW
(e.g., semantics, spelling, and syntax). Thus, it
is important to examine if findings extend to
TWW.
Present Meta-Analysis
We sought to extend prior research by esti-
mating level and trend effects of writing inter-
ventions on the writing fluency (i.e., TWW on
timed writing tasks) of students with and
without disabilities. We included only SCED
studies that reported TWW on timed writing
tasks with brief (i.e., ≤10 min) or extended
(i.e., >10 min) time limits. We included both
types of timed writing tasks to have a broad
estimate of writing fluency applicable to brief
tasks used for screening and progress moni-
toring (Romig et al., 2020) and to extended
tasks used for typical classroom instruction
(Ray et al., 2016). We had three research ques-
tions. First, what are the effects of writing
intervention on the level and trend of TWW?
Second, do effects differ by intervention type
(e.g., acquisition or fluency)? Third, do effects
differ by student demographics (e.g., age or
gender) or writing task (e.g., brief or extended
time limits)?
Method
Inclusion Criteria and Search
Strategies
We had six inclusion criteria. First, we included
published and unpublished (i.e., dissertations)
studies written in English. Second, the study
featured a SCED with repeated measurement
and multiple opportunities to detect an experi-
mental effect. Third, the independent variable
was instructional in nature: An intervention
agent (e.g., student, teacher, or computer) pre-
sented writing stimuli and prompted student
responding. We excluded independent vari-
ables that were accommodations to support
writing, such as word prediction or text-to-
speech software. Fourth, TWW was measured
on timed writing tasks that prompted text writ-
ing; handwriting and spelling assessments
Exceptional Children 88(2)
were excluded. Fifth, several demographic
variables were reported: age or grade, disabil-
ity status, and gender. Sixth, TWW data were
presented in a graph or table for each student.
If studies met all criteria except for the sixth,
then we sent an email to lead authors asking
for their data.
A total of 42 articles met the inclusion crite-
ria. To locate additional studies, we used four
search strategies: electronic, ancestral, forward,
and hand search. The search began July 2019
and ended February 2021. The first author con-
ducted an electronic search of ERIC and Psy-
cINFO databases in July 2019 using search
terms similar to prior reviews and meta-analy-
ses (Datchuk & Kubina, 2013; Datchuk, Wag-
ner, et al., 2020). We created two sets of search
terms. The first set of search terms related to
dependent variables and modes of transcrip-
tion: “total words written,” “TWW,” “writing
production,” “writing quantity,” “writing flu-
ency,” “written expression,” “curriculum-
based measurement,” “CBM,” “handwriting,”
“typing,” or “keyboarding.” The second set of
search terms related to independent variables:
“academic intervention,” “treatment,” “fluency
practice,” “strategy instruction,” “self-regu-
lated strategy development,” “SRSD,” “direct
instruction,” “explicit instruction,” “perfor-
mance feedback,” “goal setting,” “error correc-
tion,” “word processing,” “computer use,” or
“timed practice.” Each search term was joined
by OR (e.g., “direct instruction OR explicit
instruction”), and the two sets were joined by
AND (i.e., “[all terms in Set 1] AND [all terms
in Set 2]”). The search revealed 4,471 results in
ERIC and 6,107 results in PsycINFO.
The first author downloaded all search
results into a spreadsheet. Duplicates were
noted but not removed. We used a two-stage
screening process. First, titles and abstracts
were screened for eligibility. Second, if the
title or abstract met one or more of the inclu-
sion criteria, then the full text was downloaded
and screened. At the end of the two-stage pro-
cess, a total of 14 articles met the inclusion
criteria. To check reliability of the screening
process, 33% of all search results were ran-
domly selected and screened by the second
author. No discrepancies were noted.
Datchuk et al.
Following the electronic search, the first
author located an additional 16 articles meet-
ing the inclusion criteria from an ancestral and
a forward search conducted with Google
Scholar and Web of Science. Then, the first
and second authors found one additional arti-
cle meeting the inclusion criteria through a
hand search of eight journals (i.e., journals
with two or more articles meeting the inclu-
sion criteria): Behavioral Disorders, Educa-
tion and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, Exceptional Children, Exception-
ality, Journal of Behavioral Education, Jour-
nal of Special Education Technology, Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, and Learn-
ing Disability Quarterly. We hand searched
issues published since 1980, roughly corre-
sponding to the introduction of TWW in the
CBM literature (Deno et al., 1982). We
attempted to contact lead authors of studies
that met all the inclusion criteria except for
presentation of TWW as a table or figure. A
total of nine lead authors responded to our
email requests with their unpublished data. We
received the last data set December 2019. As a
final step, we searched the reference lists of
several related reviews of the writing interven-
tion literature (Ciullo & Reutebuch, 2013;
Datchuk, Wagner, et al., 2020; Graham, 2006;
Graham et al., 2013; Rogers & Graham, 2008)
and located two additional articles in January
2021. We had a final total of 42 studies that
met the inclusion criteria.
Data Coding and Extraction
We created a coding manual, and the first
author served as the primary coder. We posted
the coding manual and all coded data online
(Datchuk, Rodgers, et al., 2020). Several
aspects of student demographics, indepen-
dent variables, dependent variables and meth-
odology were coded. Student demographics
included age, disability status, gender, and
race. When only grade level was reported, we
imputed age: We assumed kindergarten stu-
dents were 5 years old and increased age by 1
year for each additional grade. We coded all
reported disability types. Given the low
occurrence of some disability types, we coded
149
disabilities into two broad categories of high-
and low-incidence disabilities based on their
prevalence in K–12 schools in the United
States (McFarland et al., 2019). High-inci-
dence disabilities were the four most preva-
lent disability types (i.e., each account for at
least 10% of students receiving special edu-
cation services): learning disabilities (LD),
speech and/or language impairment (S/LI),
other health impairment (OHI), and autism.
Low-incidence disabilities encompassed all
remaining disability types. Given little racial
diversity in our sample (i.e., the number of
White students was almost double the next
highest category), we also coded race as
White or non-White.
Independent variables were coded into one
of two categories: acquisition or fluency.
Acquisition was defined as the delivery of
instruction (e.g., SRSD) to introduce a skill or
strategy without timed practice. Fluency
involved the delivery of timed practice sepa-
rate from or in addition to instruction (e.g.,
SRSD with timed practice). Because SRSD
procedures were used in the majority of
included studies, we also coded for SRSD sta-
tus (i.e., SRSD or non-SRSD). Dependent
variables were coded for time limit (i.e., brief
or extended) and transcription mode (i.e.,
handwritten or typed). Because writing flu-
ency tasks typically range between 1.5 min
and 10 min (Romig et al., 2020), we coded
any writing task between these time limits as
brief. Conversely, we coded any writing task
with a time limit greater than 10 min as
extended. When possible, we removed desig-
nated planning time from time limits (e.g., 10
min of planning and 30 min of composition
was coded as 30 min) or coded writing dura-
tion (i.e., time spent by students engaged in
sustained writing) to better estimate writing
fluency; this was the case for five studies, or
12% of included studies (Asaro-Saddler &
Saddler, 2010; Miller & Little, 2018; Saddler,
2006; Shen & Troia, 2018; Southall, 2011).
Similar to prior reviews (Datchuk & Kubina,
2013; Datchuk, Wagner, et al., 2020), we
coded for several aspects of the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC; 2020) standards of
methodological quality: experimental design,
150
number of phases, data points per phase, fidel-
ity, and interobserver agreement (IOA).
The first and second authors coded all
studies. The first author taught a graduate stu-
dent coding procedures related to student
demographics, independent variables, depen-
dent variables, and methodology. The gradu-
ate student served as an independent observer
and coded a randomly selected 33% of arti-
cles meeting inclusion criteria (i.e., 14/42),
specifically, 1,554 cells within the coding
spreadsheet. An exact agreement formula was
used for spreadsheet cells—number of agree-
ments divided by the number of agreements
plus disagreements multiplied by 100—and
IOA was 100%.
To extract data from each SCED figure, we
used WebPlotDigitzer (Rohatgi, 2018). It has
been used in prior reviews (e.g., Datchuk,
Wagner, et al., 2020), and it has been found to
have high rates of reliability (r = .99) between
effect sizes calculated from extracted data and
those reported within primary studies (Drevon
et al., 2017). The first and second authors
extracted all data and checked each other’s
accuracy, meeting to discuss any disagree-
ments until 100% agreement was reached.
Given that administration time varied across
studies (e.g., 3 min to 90 min), TWW was
converted to TWW per minute (TWWpM) to
make comparisons across studies more appro-
priate. For multiple-baseline and multiple-
probe designs, we partitioned data into
baseline, intervention, and postintervention
phases. For studies that used reversal (i.e.,
ABAB) designs (Bauernschmidt, 1991; Wolfe
et al., 2000), we partitioned the first phase into
baseline, then subsequent phases into inter-
vention and postintervention (i.e., the second
A phase was treated as not a return to baseline
but rather a postintervention phase).
Data Analysis
Similar to a prior meta-analysis that esti-
mated level and trend from SCED studies
(Datchuk, Wagner, et al., 2020), we used (a)
mixed-effects linear regression (Raudenbush
& Bryk, 2002); (b) binary, categorical, and
continuous variables (Long, 2012); and (c) an
Exceptional Children 88(2)
information-theoretic approach to rank com-
peting regression models (Burnham et al.,
2011). There were three nested levels: writing
observations (n = 2,965) at Level 1 nested
within students (n = 205) at Level 2 nested
within studies (n = 42) at Level 3. As part of
our model-fitting process, we compared two-
and three-level models. We tried to fit a model
with no fixed parameters, a random effect of
sessions at Level 2, and random intercepts at
Levels 2 and 3, but this model did not con-
verge. Ultimately, we found a three-level,
mixed-effects model with random intercepts
at Levels 2 and 3 best accounted for variance,
and it served as our basic model.
We populated the basic model with vari-
ables thought a priori to influence TWWpM.
At Level 1 were variables related to observa-
tions across time (i.e., session and intervention
iteration). We coded session and intervention
iteration as sequential data points (e.g., the
first observation was Session 0 and the second
observation was Session 1), and we used indi-
cator coding to specify experimental phase
(i.e., baseline, intervention, or postinterven-
tion). We coded all postintervention sessions
as occurring on the final intervention iteration
(e.g., if there were four intervention iterations,
then all postintervention data were coded as
occurring on the fourth intervention iteration).
Level 2 had variables related to student demo-
graphics of age (i.e., we centered the intercept
on average age of students: 12 years old), dis-
ability type (i.e., high incidence, low inci-
dence, or none), gender (i.e., female or male),
and race (i.e., White or non-White). Level 3
had variables related to studies: intervention
procedure (i.e., acquisition, fluency, SRSD, or
non-SRSD), writing task time limit (i.e., brief
or extended), and transcription mode (i.e.,
handwritten or typed). Then, we contrasted
regression models of varying combinations of
those variables until a model of best fit was
determined (i.e., the regression model that
accounted for the most variance in TWWpM).
Parameters in the top model had accompa-
nying level or trend estimates, and parameters
in lower-performing models had no accompa-
nying estimates. We calculated p values for
each parameter to ease interpretation; however,
Datchuk et al.
we did not rely on them to determine the
regression model of best fit as linear mixed-
effect models may not meet common assump-
tions of p values (Bates et al., 2015). We
performed the analysis with R (R Core Team,
2020) and several packages, such as AICcmo-
davg (Mazerolle, 2017). We posted the full list
of packages online (Datchuk, Rodgers, et al.,
2020).
Results
There were a total of 42 studies and 205 stu-
dents. Table 1 shows parameter estimates,
standard errors, t values, and p values of the
top model. Tables 2 and 3 are posted as sup-
plemental material: Table 2 describes student
demographics, independent variables, and
dependent variables; and Table 3 shows meth-
odological quality indicators.
Student Demographics
The average age of students was 12 years old
(SD = 3.4) with a range of 6 years to 19 years
old. There were 144 males (70%) and 61
females (30%). A total of 93 students had
high-incidence disabilities (45%), 72 had
low-incidence disabilities (35%), and 40 had
no disability (20%). For specific disability
types, 68 students had an emotional-behav-
ioral disorder (EBD; 33%), 62 had LD (30%),
40 had no disability (20%), 35 had OHI
(17%), 31 had autism (15%), 10 had S/LI
(5%), and five had intellectual disability (2%).
Students with comorbid disabilities were
coded in multiple categories. Ninety-four stu-
dents were White (46%), 49 were African
American (24%), 29 were not specified
(14%), 23 were Hispanic (11%), seven were
multiracial (3%), two were Asian (1%), and
one was Native American (<1%).
Independent Variables
There were a total of 27 acquisition studies
(64%). Most acquisition studies featured a
SRSD strategy to teach planning, writing, and
revising an essay or narrative (Asaro-Saddler,
2014; Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2012; Asaro-Sad-
151
dler & Saddler, 2010; Caroll, 2018; Hashey,
2015; Levy, 2018; Lewandowski, 2011;
MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010; Mourgkasi
& Mavropoulou, 2018; Nordness et al., 2019;
Ray et al., 2019; Saddler, 2006; Southall,
2011; Werunga, 2018). Several SRSD studies
included multiple strategies for planning and/
or revising (McKeown et al., 2015; Shen &
Troia, 2018), or SRSD was supplemented with
visual supports, such as student-drawn pic-
tures for planning (Dunn, 2012, 2015; Dunn &
Miller, 2016) and production of video self-
models (Miller & Little, 2018). Besides SRSD,
the remaining acquisition studies included
graphic organizer instruction (Bishop et al.,
2015; Gonzalez-Ledo et al., 2015; Unzueta &
Barbetta, 2012) and technology-based graphic
organizers with strategy instruction and self-
regulation components (Ahn, 2017; Evmenova
et al., 2016; Good, 2019). One study used
explicit instruction to teach multiple text-writ-
ing skills within sentences and paragraphs
(Viel-Ruma et al., 2010).
There were a total of 15 fluency studies
(36%). In most fluency studies, instruction—
either SRSD or explicit instruction—was
paired with timed practice and performance
feedback. In several studies, SRSD instruc-
tion was first delivered, followed by timed
practice composing 10-min persuasive essays
and performance feedback on genre elements
(e.g., persuasive essay parts) or holistic qual-
ity (Cerar, 2012; Garwood et al., 2019; Hoover
et al., 2012; Mason et al., 2010, 2013; Mong
Cramer & Mason, 2014). In some SRSD stud-
ies, goal setting (e.g., number of essay parts or
quality score) was used to indicate when stu-
dents attained mastery or fluency (Cerar,
2012; Garwood et al., 2019; Mason et al.,
2010, 2013; Mong Cramer & Mason, 2014).
Besides SRSD, a combination of explicit
instruction, timed practice (i.e., 3-min or
12-min practice trials), performance feed-
back, and goal setting was used in two studies
(Hough et al., 2012; Rodgers, 2019). In a
smaller number of fluency studies, timed
practice was provided without additional
instruction. In those studies, students engaged
in timed practice writing 3-min narratives
(Bauernschmidt, 1991; Geisler et al., 2009;
152
Table 1. Top Regression Model: Description of Parameters.

Parameter Name Description Estimate SE t p

Default estimates: Parameters based on brief writing tasks completed in acquisition studies
γ000 Intercept Level of TWWpM when other variables 7.06 0.79 8.89 <.01
are 0 during baseline
γ100 Session Trend of TWWpM during baseline −0.01 0.02 −0.29 .77
γ200 Intervention iteration Trend of TWWpM during intervention 0.16 0.02 6.36 <.01
γ300 Intervention Level of TWWpM during intervention 0.97 0.16 5.99 <.01
γ400 Postintervention Level of TWWpM during postintervention 1.34 0.18 7.29 <.01
Added estimates: Parameters added to model if present in studies
γ500 Extended tasks Level of TWWpM on extended writing −3.57 0.55 −6.52 <.01
tasks across phases
γ600 Fluency studies Level of TWWpM in fluency studies across 2.15 1.15 1.87 .07
phases
γ700 Extended Tasks × Intervention Iteration Trend of TWWpM on extended writing −0.07 0.02 −3.37 <.01
tasks during intervention
γ800 Fluency Studies × Intervention Iteration Trend of TWWpM during fluency −0.06 0.02 −3.14 <.01
intervention sessions
γ900 Age Level of TWWpM above the mean age of 0.27 0.13 2.13 <.05
12 years old
Random effects assigned to levels
u00 s Level 2 random effects of intercept Random changes in level at student level
r0 ps Level 3 random effects of intercept Random changes in level at study level

Note. TWWpM = total words written per minute. Level is mean across phase(s), and trend is rate of growth per session. Brief writing tasks were ≤10 min, and extended writing
tasks were >10 min.
Datchuk et al.
Lavik, 2014; Stotz et al., 2008; Taylor, 2010;
Wolfe et al., 2000) and 15-min journal narra-
tives (Regan et al., 2005). Following timed
practice, students received performance feed-
back on an aspect of their writing: TWW
(Bauernschmidt, 1991; Geisler et al., 2009;
Stotz et al., 2008; Taylor, 2010; Wolfe et al.,
2000), CWS (Lavik, 2014), and journal com-
position (Regan et al., 2005). In addition,
some of those studies also featured goal set-
ting (Lavik, 2014; Rodgers, 2019; Wolfe
et al., 2000) and graphing (Bauernschmidt,
1991; Geisler et al., 2009; Lavik, 2014; Stotz
et al., 2008; Taylor, 2010; Wolfe et al., 2000).
Dependent Variables
Writing tasks with an extended time limit
(i.e., >10 min) were administered in the
majority of studies: They were administered
in 24 studies (57%) with an average time
limit of 26.2 min (SD = 10.9) and a range of
12 to 50 min (Ahn, 2017; Asaro-Saddler,
2014; Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2012; Asaro-
Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Bishop et al., 2015;
Caroll, 2018; Dunn, 2012, 2015; Dunn &
Miller, 2016; Evmenova et al., 2016; Gonza-
lez-Ledo et al., 2015; Good, 2019; Hashey,
2015; Hough et al., 2012; MacArthur &
Philippakos, 2010; McKeown et al, 2015;
Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018; Nordness
et al., 2019; Ray et al., 2019; Regan et al.,
2005; Saddler, 2006; Shen & Troia, 2018;
Unzueta & Barbetta, 2012; Werunga, 2018).
In two additional studies (5%), extended time
limits were provided of 30 min (Miller &
Little, 2018) and 90 min (Southall, 2011);
however, writing duration (i.e., time students
spent engaged in writing) was only a portion
of the time limit, ranging from 2 min to 76
min. Writing tasks with brief time limits (i.e.,
≤10 min) were administered in 16 studies
(38%), and tasks were either 3 min or 10 min
(Bauernschmidt, 1991; Cerar, 2012; Gar-
wood et al., 2019; Geisler et al., 2009; Hoover
et al., 2012; Lavik, 2014; Levy, 2018; Lewan-
dowski, 2011; Mason et al., 2010, 2013;
Mong Cramer & Mason, 2014; Rodgers,
2019; Stotz et al., 2008; Taylor, 2010; Viel-
Ruma et al., 2010; Wolfe et al., 2000).
153
Handwritten responses were most com-
mon, in 35 studies (83%), but students typed
their responses in seven studies, or 17% of
total studies (Ahn, 2017; Dunn & Miller,
2016; Evmenova et al., 2016; Good, 2019;
Hashey, 2015; Nordness et al., 2019; Unzueta
& Barbetta, 2012). In 18 studies (43%), hand-
written student responses were later typed by
researchers to ease data analysis and adjust
for potential presentation effects (e.g., hand-
writing legibility) associated with scoring
(Asaro-Saddler, 2014; Asaro-Saddler & Bak,
2012; Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Caroll,
2018; Cerar, 2012; Mong Cramer & Mason,
2014; Hoover et al., 2012; Hough et al., 2012;
MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010; Mason
et al., 2010, 2013; McKeown et al., 2015;
Ray et al., 2019; Regan et al., 2005; Saddler,
2006; Shen & Troia, 2018; Southall, 2011;
Werunga, 2018).
Methodology
Multiple-baseline or multiple-probe designs
were used in all but three studies (Bauern-
schmidt, 1991; Lavik, 2014; Wolfe et al.,
2000). Following quality recommendations
(WWC, 2020), all studies except for two
(Lavik, 2014; Lewandowski, 2011) met stan-
dards—with or without reservations—for
minimum number of data points per phase and
minimum number of phases. In most studies,
24 studies (57%), data collection was inter-
rupted (i.e., no data were collected) during
intervention, and baseline performance was
compared with a postintervention phase (Ahn,
2017; Asaro-Saddler, 2014; Asaro-Saddler &
Bak, 2012; Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010;
Bishop et al., 2015; Cerar, 2012; Dunn, 2012,
2015; Dunn & Miller, 2016; Evmenova et al.,
2016; Garwood et al., 2019; Good, 2019;
Hashey, 2015; Hoover et al., 2012; Hough
et al., 2012; MacArthur & Philippakos, 2010;
McKeown et al., 2015; Mong Cramer &
Mason, 2014; Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou,
2018; Nordness et al., 2019; Ray et al., 2019;
Saddler, 2006; Shen & Troia, 2018; Werunga,
2018). All studies except for one (Bauern-
schmidt, 1991) reported treatment fidelity. A
total of 16 studies (38%) did not report IOA:
154
Two studies reported IOA for other writing
fluency metrics (Dunn, 2012; Lavik, 2014),
and the remaining 14 studies used computer
software (e.g., Microsoft Word) to determine
TWW (Asaro-Saddler, 2014; Asaro-Saddler
& Bak, 2012; Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010;
Dunn & Miller, 2016; Hashey, 2015; MacAr-
thur & Philippakos, 2010; Mason et al., 2010,
2013; Mong Cramer & Mason, 2014; Nord-
ness et al., 2019; Ray et al., 2019; Regan et al.,
2005; Shen & Troia, 2018; Southall, 2011).
Data Analysis of TWWpM
We calculated and compared a total of 35 dif-
ferent regression models. The top model
accounted for 74% of the corrected Akaike
information criterion (AICc) weight. The
Y
ips = γ 000 + ( γ100 ) ( Session ) + ( γ 200 ) ( Intervention Iteration ) + ( γ 300 ) ( Intervention )
+ ( γ 400 ) ( Post Intervention ) + ( γ 500 ) ( Extended Tasks ) + ( γ 600 ) ( Fluency Studies )
+ ( γ 700 ) ( Extended Tasks x Intervention Iteration )
+ ( γ 800 ) ( Fluency Studies x Intervention Iteration )
+ ( γ 900 ) ( Age ) + u00 s + r0 ps
The top-performing model includes sev-
eral factors thought a priori to explain vari-
ance in TWWpM: age (i.e., above or below
the mean age of 12 years old), time limit of
writing task (i.e., brief or extended), interven-
tion type (i.e., acquisition or fluency), and
when postbaseline data were collected (i.e.,
during intervention or postintervention). Not
present in the top model are some factors
thought a priori to explain variance, such as
several demographic variables (i.e., disability
status, gender, and race), independent vari-
ables (i.e., SRSD and non-SRSD), and depen-
dent variables (i.e., transcription modes of
handwriting and typing).
As shown in Table 1, the default parameter
estimates are the TWWpM produced on brief
writing tasks by students (i.e., average age of
12 years old) within acquisition studies. Three
parameter estimates (i.e., age, extended tasks,
and fluency studies) and two interactions (i.e.,
Exceptional Children 88(2)
second model accounted for approximately
14% of the AICc weight, and each remaining
model accounted for approximately 5% or
below of the remaining AICc weight. With a
clear separation in AICc weight, there was a
high probability that the top model accounted
for a sufficient amount of variance in the cri-
terion variable (Burnham et al., 2011; Long,
2012). In addition, the evidence ratio of the
top two models (i.e., dividing the AICc weight
of the top model by the second model) indi-
cated the top model was approximately 5
times more likely than the second model
(Burnham & Anderson, 2002). The top model,
shown in Equation (1), has 13 parameter esti-
mates (see Table 1), an AICc value of
14186.54, an AICc weight of 0.74, and a log
likelihood of −7080.21.
(1)
Extended Tasks × Intervention Iteration and
Fluency Studies × Intervention Iteration) are
added to the model for studies that included
these variables. For example, students tended
to have higher rates of TWWpM on brief writ-
ing tasks than on extended writing tasks: Dur-
ing baseline, students averaged 7.06 TWWpM
on brief writing tasks but only 3.49 TWWpM
on extended writing tasks. That is, estimates
show that the level of TWWpM on extended
writing tasks had, on average, 3.57 fewer
TWWpM than on brief writing tasks (i.e.,
7.06 – 3.57 = 3.49 TWWpM). The contribu-
tion of individual parameters to the top model
ranges from small to large. Specifically, the
parameters of session and fluency studies
have relatively small t values, large standard
errors, and nonsignificant p values, meaning
these estimates are likely to change given the
inclusion of additional data from future stud-
ies (Burnham & Anderson, 2002).
Datchuk et al.
Discussion
Writing interventions had a positive effect on
the level and trend of TWWpM across studies.
During baseline, students tended to show little
to no growth across time. Intervention pro-
duced an increase in level of 0.97 TWWpM
and a gradual increase in trend of 0.16
TWWpM each intervention session or approx-
imately 1.6 TWWpM every 10 sessions. In
addition, the postintervention level was 1.34
TWWpM. This is impressive change given
that on average, students tend to improve by
0.17 TWW to 0.47 TWW per 3 min each
week, which is prorated to 0.06 TWWpM to
0.16 TWWpM each week (AIMSweb, 2016).
Writing interventions had a positive
effect on the level and trend of
TWWpM across studies.
Following recommendations to categorize
writing interventions by intended learning out-
come (Codding et al., 2019), we found level
and trend effects differed by acquisition or flu-
ency. Acquisition intervention resulted in a
slightly steeper trend: Acquisition interven-
tions had an average gain of 0.16 TWWpM per
session, and fluency interventions had an aver-
age gain of 0.10 TWWpM per session (i.e.,
0.06 TWWpM fewer per session). This differ-
ential effect in trend may partially stem from
differences in level. Cautious interpretation is
warranted because of its relatively minor con-
tribution to the top regression model (see the
fluency studies parameter in Table 1); however,
fluency studies had higher level of performance
across experimental phases (i.e., baseline, flu-
ency intervention, and post–fluency interven-
tion), an average of 2.15 TWWpM more than
acquisition studies. With a higher level of per-
formance, it is possible students in fluency
studies were approaching their performance
ceiling and had little additional room for gains
in trend. Conversely, students in acquisition
studies had lower levels of performance but
more room to make incremental gains in trend.
We found acquisition interventions improved
writing fluency, extending prior reviews that
have typically reported effects on writing length
or count of TWW on untimed writing tasks
155
(Ciullo & Reutebuch, 2013; Graham, 2006;
Graham et al., 2013; Rogers & Graham, 2008).
A variety of acquisition interventions were
used, with SRSD and graphic organizer instruc-
tion being the most frequent. Both instructional
approaches (i.e., SRSD and graphic organizer
instruction) were primarily used to improve
aspects of writing other than TWW, such as
genre elements (e.g., essay parts) and holistic
writing quality, meaning gains in TWW largely
resulted as an auxiliary benefit from focusing
on other aspects of writing.
Similar to prior studies (e.g., Hier & Eckert,
2016; Mason et al., 2013), we found positive
effects for fluency interventions that featured
timed practice paired with one or more compo-
nents of initial instruction (e.g., explicit
instruction or SRSD), performance feedback,
goal setting, and graphing of performance. Of
note, we categorized all interventions that pro-
vided explicit support for speed or automatic-
ity (i.e., timed practice) as fluency
interventions, even though some interventions
featured a combination of initial instruction for
acquisition and timed practice for fluency
(e.g., Hoover et al., 2012). We did this to
reflect the intended learning outcome of stud-
ies (i.e., fluency and not just acquisition) and
to reflect limitations with the TWW metric:
Because TWW does not account for accuracy
(i.e., words without regard to spelling, syntax,
or semantics), the distinction between when
initial instruction to improve accuracy stops
and when fluency practice to improve speed
begins is blurred. In future studies, researchers
may want to investigate more nuanced distinc-
tions between intervention types (e.g., combi-
nation acquisition and fluency).
When compared with a similar meta-analy-
sis that estimated effects of writing interven-
tions on level and trend of CWS per minute
(CWSpM; Datchuk, Wagner, et al., 2020), our
results suggest that effects may differ if writ-
ing fluency is measured by TWW or CWS. In
the present meta-analysis, intervention resulted
in a larger change in TWW level (i.e., 0.97
TWWpM) than trend (i.e., 0.16 TWWpM). In
the prior meta-analysis (Datchuk, Wagner,
et al., 2020), the opposite was true for CWS
level and trend: Intervention resulted in a
smaller change in CWS level (i.e., –0.19
156
CWSpM) than trend (i.e., 0.39 CWSpM).
This difference may partially stem from what
TWW and CWS measure. Namely, TWW
accounts for increases in any kind of written
production (e.g., misspelled or spelled cor-
rectly), whereas CWS has more stringent cri-
teria: It accounts for multiple aspects of
production, such as use of correct spelling and
syntax (Ritchey et al., 2016). As such, TWW
may show more immediate change in level
than CWS; however, CWS may show greater
gains in trend as more aspects of production
(e.g., rules of syntax) are addressed by inter-
vention. Caution must be exercised when
comparing results between meta-analyses.
Differences between TWW and CWS may
primarily reflect variance across students and
studies: The present TWW meta-analysis and
the prior CWS meta-analysis (Datchuk, Wag-
ner, et al., 2020) overlapped by only four pri-
mary studies (Bishop et al., 2015; Lavik,
2014; Lewandowski, 2011; Stotz et al., 2008).
Future writing intervention research is ulti-
mately needed to understand differential
effects of writing interventions on writing flu-
ency metrics, including TWW and CWS.
Similar to prior meta-analytic findings, we
found writing fluency varied by age but did
not substantially vary by other student demo-
graphics of disability status, gender, and race
(Datchuk, Wagner, et al., 2020). Specifically,
older students (i.e., above the mean age of 12
years old) tended to show higher levels of
TWWpM than younger students. It is impor-
tant to note that the student sample was fairly
homogenous: The sample comprised mostly
White males with EBD or LD (i.e., 47% of stu-
dents were White and 65% EBD or LD), and
this lack of diversity may have contributed to
our findings. Given low prevalence of certain
racial groups and disability types (e.g., His-
panic and autism), we collapsed categories of
race (i.e., White and non-White) and disability
type by prevalence (i.e., high and low inci-
dence); however, these did not prove to sub-
stantially contribute to variance in TWWpM.
Results also extend research on measure-
ment of writing fluency. We included studies
that administered brief (i.e., ≤10 min) or
extended (i.e., >10 min) writing tasks because
both types of writing tasks are used within
Exceptional Children 88(2)
schools: brief writing tasks for screening and
progress monitoring (Romig et al., 2020) and
extended writing tasks for instruction and
assessment in core instruction (Ray et al.,
2016). Compared with brief writing tasks
(i.e., see default parameter estimates in Table
1), we found students on extended writing
tasks had lower levels of performance by 3.57
TWWpM across experimental phases (i.e.,
baseline, intervention, and postintervention)
and less steep trends during intervention by
0.07 TWWpM per session. This finding cor-
responds to theories of writing development
and writing fluency (Berninger & Amtmann,
2003; Ritchey et al., 2016). Specifically, on
brief writing tasks, students have time to
engage in sustained transcription and text
generation with little opportunity to stop and
engage aspects of self-regulation. Extended
writing tasks by definition have longer time
limits and provide more opportunity for stu-
dents to engage in self-regulatory aspects of
writing, such as pausing to consider plans and
revisions, thereby lowering writing speed.
Methodological Quality
Studies typically had high methodological
quality with two important caveats. First, a
sizable number of studies, 16 studies (38%),
did not report IOA, and many of these studies
used automated software to calculate TWW.
Although automated software likely increases
replicability of procedures, it raises specific
concerns for studies in which researchers
typed handwritten student responses for anal-
ysis. Because scoring TWW depends on judg-
ments of space and legibility, it is important
that studies not only report IOA but also detail
the process by which handwritten student
responses are transferred to typed responses.
Second, most studies (i.e., 57% of total
studies and 70% of acquisition studies) inter-
rupted data collection during intervention and
continued data collection postintervention. For
those studies, we estimated postintervention
level; however, if data were collected during
intervention, it is logical to assume that effect
estimates (i.e., level and trend) may decrease
given the gradual nature of skill acquisition. In
addition, interrupting data collection creates a
Datchuk et al.
semiopaque picture of intervention effects dur-
ing intervention and makes it difficult to esti-
mate when changes in level and trend may
occur. This may delay data-based decision
making central to intervention delivery, such as
judging performance in relation to set criteria
and altering intervention procedures as needed
(Riley-Tillman et al., 2020). In future studies,
researchers should consider continuing data
collection during intervention to provide more
precise estimates of intervention effects.
Limitations and Future Directions
There are three limitations and future directions.
First, although no student demographics were
present in the top model, the student sample was
largely homogenous, comprising mostly White
males with EBD or LD. Future intervention
research should include more diverse samples of
students. Second, level and trend estimates were
calculated only for parameters in the top model.
Some common aspects of intervention and mea-
surement, such as SRSD and transcription mode
(i.e., handwritten or typed), were not part of the
top model and did not have accompanying effect
estimates. In future meta-analyses, researchers
may want to consider use of other meta-analytic
techniques to estimate additional parameters of
interest. Third, we did not formally assess for
influence of publication bias. We did include
gray literature (i.e., unpublished doctoral disser-
tations), but publication bias is still likely given
the relatively small sample size. Future research
should investigate ways of assessing for publica-
tion bias because current techniques, such as
Egger’s test for funnel plot symmetry (Egger
et al., 1997), do not meet assumptions of multi-
ple regression parameters used in the present
meta-analysis.
Implications for Practice
There are several implications for practice. To
improve the writing fluency (i.e., rate of TWW
on timed writing tasks) of students with and
without disabilities, practitioners should
consider using several acquisition and flu-
ency interventions. Acquisition interventions
include SRSD and graphic organizer instruc-
tion to teach essay or narrative writing. Fluency
157
interventions include timed practice writing to
prompts (e.g., 10-min persuasive essays) paired
with initial instruction (e.g., SRSD) and addi-
tional practice components of performance
feedback, goal setting, and graphing. Although
the primary goal of acquisition or fluency inter-
vention may be to improve other aspects of
writing, such as the number of genre elements,
the rate of TWWpM may increase as a second-
ary benefit. As a result of intervention, students
may show an increase in level (i.e., older stu-
dents showing higher levels than younger stu-
dents) and a gradual increase in trend of
TWWpM. Students may show steeper upward
trends from acquisition intervention than from
fluency intervention. Changes in both level and
trend may be more apparent on brief writing
tasks used for progress monitoring, such as
CBM-WE, and less apparent on longer writing
tasks in which students are expected to engage
in planning and revising.
To improve the writing fluency . . .
of students with and without
disabilities, practitioners should
consider using several acquisition
and fluency interventions.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate stud-
ies included in the meta-analysis.
*Ahn, S. Y. (2017). Using a mobile-based graphic
organizer with embedded procedural facilita-
tion for idea generation to support persuasive
essay writing for middle school students
with emotional and behavioral disorders
(Publication No. 10685724) [Doctoral disser-
tation, George Mason University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
AIMSweb®. (2016). AIMSweb national norms
table: Written expression—Total words writ-
ten. Pearson.
*Asaro-Saddler, K. (2014). Self-regulated strategy
development: Effects on writers with autism
spectrum disorders. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(1),
78–91.
*Asaro-Saddler, K., & Bak, N. (2012). Teaching
children with high-functioning autism spectrum
disorders to write persuasive essays. Topics in
Language Disorders, 32(4), 361–378. https://
doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318271813f
158
*Asaro-Saddler, K., & Saddler, B. (2010). Planning
instruction and self-regulation training: Effects
on writers with autism spectrum disorder.
Exceptional Children, 77(1), 107–124. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001440291007700105
Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker,
S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects mod-
els using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,
67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.
i01
*Bauernschmidt, M. C. (1991). Repeated writing
to improve writing fluency for students with
mild handicaps (Publication No. 9210158)
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–
Milwaukee]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
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. R. Harris,
S. Graham, H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S.
Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabili-
ties (pp. 345–363). Guilford Press.
*Bishop, A. E., Sawyer, M., Alber-Morgan, S.
R., & Boggs, M. (2015). Effects of a graphic
organizer training package on the persua-
sive writing of middle school students with
autism. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 290–302.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model
selection and multimodel inference: A practi-
cal information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.).
Springer.
Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., & Huyvaert,
K. P. (2011). AIC model selection and multi-
model inference in behavioral ecology: Some
background, observations, and comparison.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 23–
35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6
*Caroll, M. L. (2018). The impact of using self-reg-
ulated strategy development to increase expos-
itory writing outcomes in students at-risk for
emotional and behavioral disorders [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas–Austin].
University of Texas–Austin Scholar Works.
https://hdl.handle.net/2152/68132
*Cerar, N. I. (2012). Teaching students with emo-
tional and behavior disorder how to write
persuasive essays fluently (Publication No.
3506246) [Doctoral dissertation, George
Mason University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Exceptional Children 88(2)
Ciullo, S., & Reutebuch, C. (2013). Computer-
based graphic organizers for students with LD:
A systematic review of literature. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(4), 196–
210. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12017
Codding, R. S., Kromminga, K. R., & Running, K.
(2019). Behavioral interventions for academic
performance: A summary of the literature. In S.
G. Little, & A. Akin-Little (Eds.), Behavioral
interventions in the schools: Evidence-based
positive strategies (2nd ed., pp. 143–169).
American Psychology Association.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade
writing instruction: A national survey. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656
Datchuk, S. M., & Kubina, R. M. (2013). A review
of teaching sentence-level writing skills to
students with writing difficulties and learning
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,
34(3), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419
32512448254
Datchuk, S. M., Rodgers, D. B., Wagner, K., Hier,
B. O., & Moore, C. T. (2020). Effects of writ-
ing interventions on the level and trend of total
words written: A meta-analysis [Data set].
https://osf.io/e2fqb/?view_only=d0df68af8db
7450badbc2907e3e2eb7c
Datchuk, S. M., Wagner, K., & Hier, B. O. (2020).
Level and trend of writing sequences: A review
and meta-analysis of writing interventions for
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,
86(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144
02919873311
Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982).
Valid measurement procedures for continuous
evaluation of written expression. Exceptional
Children, 48(4), 368–371. https://doi.org/10
.1177/001440298204800417
Drevon, D., Fursa, S. R., & Malcolm, A. L.
(2017). Intercoder reliability and validity
of WebPlotDigitizer in extracting graphed
data. Behavior Modification, 41(2), 323–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516673998
*Dunn, M. (2012). Illustrating story plans: Does
a mnemonic strategy including art media ren-
der more elaborate text? Journal of Visual
Literacy, 31, 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23796529.2012.11674696
*Dunn, M. (2015). Students at-risk of having dys-
graphia: Applying assistive technology tools
to help with pre writing. Educational Policies
and Current Practices, 1, 99–111.
Datchuk et al.
*Dunn, M., & Miller, D. (2016). Improving story
writing: Integrating the story mnemonic
strategy with iPad apps for art and keyboard-
ing. International Journal for Research in
Learning Disabilities, 3(1), 11–28.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder,
C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a
simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal,
316, 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315
.7109.629
*Evmenova, A. S., Regan, K., Booykin, A.,
Good, K., Hughes, M., MacVittie, N., Sacco,
D., Ahn, S. Y., & Chirinos, D. (2016).
Emphasizing planning for essay writing
with a computer-based graphic organizer.
Exceptional Children, 82(2), 170–191. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0014402915591697
Fearrington, J. Y., Parker, P. D., Kidder-Ashley,
P., Gagnon, S. G., McCane-Bowling, S., &
Sorrell, C. A. (2014). Gender differences in
written expression curriculum-based mea-
surement in third- and through eighth-grade
students. Psychology in the Schools, 51(1),
85–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21733
Furey, W. M., Marcotte, A. M., Hintze, J. M., &
Shackett, C. M. (2016). Concurrent validity
and classification accuracy of curriculum-
based measurement for written expression.
School Psychology Quarterly, 31(3), 369–382.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000138
Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., Vanderheyden, A. M.,
Slider, N. J., Hoffpauir, L. D., Whitmarsh,
E. L., & Naquin, G. M. (2004). An examina-
tion of the criterion validity and sensitivity
to brief intervention of alternate curriculum-
based measures of writing skill. Psychology
in the Schools, 41(3), 291–300. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.10166
*Garwood, J. D., Werts, M. G., Mason, L. H.,
Harris, B., Austin, M. B., Ciullo, S., Magner,
K., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Shin, M. (2019).
Improving persuasive science writing for sec-
ondary students with emotional and behavioral
disorders education in residential treatment facil-
ities. Behavioral Disorders, 44(4), 227–240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918809341
*Geisler, J. L., Hessler, T., Gardner, R., III, &
Lovelace, T. S. (2009). Differentiated writing
interventions for high-achieving urban African
American elementary students. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 20(2), 214–247. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902000202
159
*Gonzalez-Ledo, M., Barbetta, P. M., & Unzueta,
C. H. (2015). The effects of computer graphic
organizers on the narrative writing of elementary
school students with specific learning disabili-
ties. Journal of Special Education Technology,
30(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264
341503000103
*Good, K. E. (2019). The pen or the cursor: A
single-subject comparison of a paper-based
graphic organizer and a computer-based
graphic organizer to support the persuasive
writing of students with emotional and behav-
ioral disorders or mild autism (Publication
No. 13864282) [Doctoral dissertation, George
Mason University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the
teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207).
Guilford.
Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-
community model of writing. Educational
Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013).
The writing of students with learning disabili-
ties, meta-analysis of self-regulated strategy
development writing intervention studies, and
future directions: Redux. In L. Swanson, K.
R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of
learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 405–438).
Guilford.
*Hashey, A. I. (2015). A technology-enhanced
approach to self-regulated strategy develop-
ment: Engaging adolescents with emotional and
behavioral disorders in argumentative writing
(Publication No. 3714605) [Doctoral disserta-
tion, University at Buffalo–State University of
New York). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
Hier, B. O., & Eckert, T. L. (2016). Programming
generality into a performance feedback writing
intervention: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of School Psychology, 56, 111–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.03.003
*Hoover, T. M., Kubina, R. M., & Mason, L.
H. (2012). Effects of self-regulated strat-
egy development for POW + TREE on high
school students with learning disabilities.
Exceptionality, 20(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/09362835.2012.640903
160
*Hough, T. M., Hixson, M. D., Decker, D., &
Bradley-Johnson, S. (2012). The effec-
tiveness of an explicit instruction writ-
ing program for second graders. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 21, 163–174. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10864-012-9146-0
Keller-Margulis, M. A., Mercer, S. H., Payan,
A., & McGee, W. (2015). Measuring annual
growth using written expression curricu-
lum-based measurement: An examination
of seasonal and gender differences. School
Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 276–288. https://
doi.org/10.1037/spq0000086
Kim, Y. S. G., Gatlin, B., Al Otaiba, S., & Wanzek,
J. (2018). Theorization and an empirical inves-
tigation of the component-based and develop-
mental text writing fluency construct. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 51(4), 320–335.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417712016
Koenig, E. A., Eckert, T. L., & Hier, B. O. (2016).
Using performance feedback and goal setting
to improve elementary students’ writing flu-
ency: A randomized controlled trial. School
Psychology Review, 45(3), 275–295. https://
doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-3.275-295
*Lavik, K. B. (2014). The effectiveness of a goal
setting intervention that incorporates perfor-
mance feedback, self-graphing, and reinforce-
ment on improving the writing skills of high
school students (Publication No. 3671433)
[Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Levy, R. A. (2018). Effectiveness of a modi-
fied approach to small-group SRSD for sec-
ond grade students with writing difficulties
(Publication No. 10969829) [Doctoral dis-
sertation, North Carolina State University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Lewandowski, S. C. (2011). The effects of a modi-
fied version of self-regulated startegy develop-
ment and self-talk internalization strategy on
writing and self-talk for elementary students
with attention difficulties (Publication No.
3468986) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University]. Proquest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Long, J. D. (2012). Longitudinal data analysis for
the behavioral sciences using R. Sage.
*MacArthur, C. A., & Philippakos, Z. (2010).
Instruction in a strategy for compare-contrast
writing. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 438–456.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600404
Maki, K. E., Zaslofksy, A. F., Knight, S.,
Ebbesmeyer, A. M., & Chelmo-Boatman,
Exceptional Children 88(2)
A. (2020). Intervening with multiplication
fact difficulties: Examining the utility of the
instructional hierarchy to target interventions.
Journal of Behavioral Education. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10864-020-09388-0
*Mason, L. H., Kubina, R. M., & Hoover, T.
(2013). Effects of quick writing instruction
for high school students with emotional distur-
bances. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 21(3), 163–175. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1063426611410429
*Mason, L. H., Kubina, R. M., Valasa, L. L., &
Mong Cramer, A. (2010). Evaluating effec-
tive writing instruction for adolescent students
in an emotional and behavior support setting.
Behavioral Disorders, 35(2), 140–156. https://
doi.org/10.1177/019874291003500205
Mazerolle, M. J. (2017). AICcmodavg (Version
2.1-1) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-
project.org/web/packages/AICcmodavg/index.
html
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X.,
Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer,
A. (2019). The condition of education 2019.
National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=2019144
*McKeown, D., Kimball, K., & Ledford, J. (2015).
Effects of asynchronous audio feedback on
the story revision practices of students with
emotional/behavioral disorders. Education
and Treatment of Children, 38(4), 541–564.
https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2015.0020
McMaster, K. L., Lembke, E. S., Shin, J., Poch,
A. L., Smith, R. A., Jung, P.-G., Allen, A.
A., & Wagner, K. (2020). Supporting teach-
ers’ use of data-based instruction to improve
students’ early writing skills. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 112(1), 1–21. https://
doi.org/10.1037/edu0000358
*Miller, K. M., & Little, M. E. (2018). Examining
the effects of SRSD in combination with
video self-modeling on writing by third
grade students with learning disabilities.
Exceptionality, 26(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09362835.2017.1283622
*Mong Cramer, A., & Mason, L. H. (2014). The
effects of strategy instruction for writing and
revising persuasive quick writes for middle
school students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 40(1), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.17988/0198-7429-40.1.37
Datchuk et al.
*Mourgkasi, V., & Mavropoulou, S. (2018). Story
composition, mental state language and self-
regulation strategy instruction for writers
with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(1),
36–49.
*Nordness, P. D., Hagaman, J. L., Herskovitz, R.,
& Leader-Janssen, E. (2019). POWER UP: A
persuasive writing strategy for secondary stu-
dents with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Journal of Education and Learning, 8, 32–42.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n4p32
Parker, D. C., & Burns, M. K. (2014). Using the
instructional level as a criterion to target
reading interventions. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 30(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.10
80/10573569.2012.702047
Parker, D. C., McMaster, K. L., & Burns, M. K.
(2011). Determining an instructional level
for early writing skills. School Psychology
Review, 40(1), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.10
80/02796015.2011.12087735
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and envi-
ronment for statistical computing (Version
4.0) [Computer software]. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.
org
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002).
Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage
Ray, A. B., Graham, S., Houston, J. D., & Harris,
R. (2016). Teachers’ use of writing to sup-
port students’ learning in middle school: A
national survey in the United States. Reading
and Writing, 29, 1039–1068. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11145-015-9602-z
*Ray, A. B., Graham, S., & Liu, X. (2019). Effects
of SRSD college entrance exam instruction for
high school students with disabilities or at-risk
for writing difficulties. Reading and Writing,
32, 1507–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s111
45-018-9900-3
*Regan, K. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs,
T. E. (2005). Promoting expressive writing
among students with emotional and behav-
ioral disturbance via dialogue journals.
Behavioral Disorders, 31, 33–50. https://doi.
org/10.1177/019874290503100107
Riley-Tillman, T. C., Burns, M. K., & Kilgus, S. P.
(2020). Evaluating educational interventions:
Single-case design for measuring response to
intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford.
Ritchey, K. D., McMaster, K. L., Al Otaiba, S.,
Puranik, C. S., Grace Kim, Y. S., Parker, D. C.,
161
& Ortiz, M. (2016). Indicators of fluent writ-
ing in beginning writers. In. K. D. Cummings,
& Y. Petscher (Eds.), The fluency construct
(pp. 21–66). Springer.
*Rodgers, D. B. (2019). A paragraph text-writ-
ing intervention for secondary students with
intellectual and developmental disabilities:
A single-case design study (Publication No.
13811948) [Doctoral dissertation, University
of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
Rohatgi, A. (2018). WebPlotDigitzer (Version 4.1)
[Computer software]. https://arohatgi.info/
WebPlotDigitzer.
Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analy-
sis of single subject design writing intervention
research. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(4), 879–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022
-0663.100.4.879
Romig, J. E., Miller, A. A., Therrien, W. J., &
Lloyd, J. W. (2020). Meta-analysis of prompt
and duration for curriculum-based measure-
ment of written language. Exceptionality.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09362835.2020.1743706
Romig, J. E., Therrien, W. J., & Lloyd, J. W.
(2017). Meta-analysis of criterion valid-
ity for curriculum-based measurement in
written language. The Journal of Special
Education, 51(2), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.11
77%2F0022466916670637
*Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing story-writing ability
through self-regulated strategy development:
Effects on young writers with learning dis-
abilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4),
291–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035555
Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skill problems:
Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.).
Guilford.
*Shen, M., & Troia, G. A. (2018). Teaching chil-
dren with language-learning disabilities to plan
and revise compare-contrast texts. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 41(1), 44–61. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0731948717701260
*Southall, C. (2011). Self-regulated strategy devel-
opment writing instruction for adolescents
with autism spectrum disorder [Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Georgia]. University
of Georgia-Athenaeum. http://hdl.handle.net/
10724/27602
*Stotz, K. E., Itoi, M., Konrad, M., & Alber-
Morgan, S. R. (2008). Effects of self-graphing
on written expression of fourth grade students
with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of
162
Behavioral Education, 17, 172–186. http://doi.
org/10.1007/s10864-007-9055-9
*Taylor, C. M. (2010). The effects of repeated
writing on secondary students’ writing flu-
ency (Publication No. 3425372) [Doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
*Unzueta, C. H., & Barbetta, P. M. (2012). The
effects of computer organizers on the per-
suasive writing of Hispanic middle school
students with specific learning disabilities.
Journal of Special Education Technology,
27(3), 15–30. http://doi.org/10.1177/016264
341202700302
U.S. Department of Education Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for
Educational Statistics. (2011). NAEP data
explorer [Data set and software]. http://nation-
sreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE
*Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K.,
Fredrick, L. D., & Gama, R. (2010). Direct
instruction in written expression: The effects
on English speakers and English language
learners with disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 25(2), 97–108. http://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00307.x
*Werunga, R. N. (2018). Effects of self-regulated
strategy development on the writing skills and
problem behaviors of students with emotional and
behavioral disorders (Publication No. 10846952)
[Doctoral dissertation, University of North
Carolina–Charlotte]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works
Clearinghouse standards handbook: Version
4.1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for
Exceptional Children 88(2)
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
Wolery, M., Busick, M., Reichow, B., &
Barton, E. E. (2010). Comparison of over-
lap methods for quantitatively synthesiz-
ing single-subject data. The Journal of
Special Education, 44(1), 18–28. http://doi.
org/10.1177/0022466908328009
*Wolfe, L. H., Heron, T. E., & Goddard, Y. L.
(2000). Effects of self-monitoring on the on-
task behavior and written language perfor-
mance of elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education,
10(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10166
95806663
Authors’ Note
Study data and materials are shared online
(Datchuk, Rodgers, et al., 2020).
Open Science Practices
For publishing data and materials, this article
earned badges for Open Data and Open Materials.
The public content for the data, code, and materials
may be retrieved from https://osf.io/e2fqb/?view_
only=d0df68af8db7450badbc2907e3e2eb7c.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available
online.
Manuscript received November 2020; accepted
June 2021.
Copyright of Exceptional Children is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.