ArticleLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools2025
The Insufficiency of Norm-Referenced Writing Assessment for Identifying Writing Weaknesses in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
Article in Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study examined the internal consistency reliability, interrater reliability, and concurrent validity of the norm-referenced Test of Early Written Language-Third Edition (TEWL-3) to determine if it is an appropriate measure to use when determining if elementary children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) meet grade-level writing expectations.
methodParticipants included 111 second-grade children across three groups: children with typical hearing (CTH), children who use cochlear implants, and children who use hearing aids. Reliability and validity were compared across all groups.
resultsReliability was very strong across groups. CTH followed expected patterns of validity, whereas patterns of validity differed for DHH. Results indicated, on average, that all groups performed in the average or above average ranges on the TEWL-3 but in the not proficient range on the 6 + 1 Trait Writing Rubric: Grades K-2.
conclusionsGiven the purpose of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures and the differences in performance on the TEWL-3 and the 6 + 1 Trait Writing Rubric: Grades K-2 across groups, speech-language pathologists should not rely on norm-referenced writing assessments to make eligibility decisions for specialized writing intervention services, especially for the DHH population. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29618573.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.