Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25937667›Full record

ArticleJournal of educational psychology2015

Towards an understanding of dimensions, predictors, and gender gap in written composition.

Young-Suk Kim, Stephanie Al Otaiba, Jeanne Wanzek, Brandy Gatlin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of educational psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Grade Level Expectations in Lexical Measures and Accuracy of Written Narrative Samples.Journal of child language acquisition and development · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The Impact of Transcription Writing Interventions for First-Grade Students.Reading & writing quarterly : overcoming learning difficulties · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Young-Suk KimFlorida State University and Florida Center for Reading Research.
Stephanie Al OtaibaSouthern Methodist University.
Jeanne WanzekFlorida State University and Florida Center for Reading Research.
Brandy GatlinFlorida State University.

Funding

THE FLORIDA LONGITUDINAL STUDYP50HD052120 · NICHD · FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Nicole Sandi Patton-Terry · 2006 to 2026
$31.7M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD052120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We had three aims in the present study: (1) to examine the dimensionality of various evaluative approaches to scoring writing samples (e.g., quality, productivity, and curriculum based writing [CBM]) , (2) to investigate unique language and cognitive predictors of the identified dimensions, and (3) to examine gender gap in the identified dimensions of writing. These questions were addressed using data from second and third grade students (

Indexed as

CBMDimensionalityGenderWriting ProductivityWriting Quality

Identifiers

PMID25937667
PMCPMC4414052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.