View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Systematic Review of Early Writing Assessment Tools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Systematic Review of Early Writing Assessment Tools
Language: English
Authors: Katherine L. Buchanan, Milena Keller-Margulis (ORCID 0000-0001-7539-5375), Amanda Hut, Weihua Fan, Sarah S. Mire (ORCID 0000-0002-3763-3237), G. Thomas Schanding (ORCID 0000-0003-0195-6664)
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(6):1939-1949.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Descriptors: Writing Evaluation, Evaluation Methods, Emergent Literacy, Beginning Writing, Preschool Children, Kindergarten, Young Children, Writing Tests, Naming, Alphabets, Spelling, Scoring, Test Reliability, Test Validity
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01697-7
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: There is considerable research regarding measures of early reading but much less in early writing. Nevertheless, writing is a critical skill for success in school and early difficulties in writing are likely to persist without intervention. A necessary step toward identifying those students who need additional support is the use of screening tools. The purpose of this study was to identify tools used with emergent writers and summarize the current state of this empirical literature. A systematic review was conducted for publications between 1990 and 2022. A total of 59 studies focused on early writing for preschool or kindergarten students and met criteria for inclusion in the review. Results indicated the most used early writing measure was Name Writing followed by Letter Writing, and Spelling tasks with some studies using this specific combination of measures. Despite some consistency in the measures used, there was significant variation in the scoring approach. Review of technical adequacy indicated 65% of studies included reliability data while considerably fewer included validity. Future studies using consistent approaches to scoring early writing tasks and additional examinations of validity are needed to improve educators' ability to identify and intervene in this skill area.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1479585
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEnL30Wy3yOMjYLAQFS3F7yAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLg-Eu0r9T7S8toKJgIBEICBm0WBxsRePyhw8WAUeQXKeXoZxZMj05AxrKB4hLdapUJIYVdqRz6i6Z0mk4ZUdQAMKiEkZ9nugSOU8aA9v-bL2bIBYrWUIOGT-EQa3pCjjYRGQDSEKlYnUaXyyXTLHR9HVgIPG1xtH36KQL9KvsTdfz_ECPzg49kGVaNiEHc1Nr4u4-Vnu4BuUdWflvoOOSeJPAe8Cy0gGKOli5CC
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187189959;5mx01aug.25;2025Aug11.03:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187189959-1">A Systematic Review of Early Writing Assessment Tools </title> <p>There is considerable research regarding measures of early reading but much less in early writing. Nevertheless, writing is a critical skill for success in school and early difficulties in writing are likely to persist without intervention. A necessary step toward identifying those students who need additional support is the use of screening tools. The purpose of this study was to identify tools used with emergent writers and summarize the current state of this empirical literature. A systematic review was conducted for publications between 1990 and 2022. A total of 59 studies focused on early writing for preschool or kindergarten students and met criteria for inclusion in the review. Results indicated the most used early writing measure was Name Writing followed by Letter Writing, and Spelling tasks with some studies using this specific combination of measures. Despite some consistency in the measures used, there was significant variation in the scoring approach. Review of technical adequacy indicated 65% of studies included reliability data while considerably fewer included validity. Future studies using consistent approaches to scoring early writing tasks and additional examinations of validity are needed to improve educators' ability to identify and intervene in this skill area.</p> <p>Keywords: Early literacy; Writing; Universal screening</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-2">A Systematic Review of Early Writing Assessment Tools</hd> <p>Early reading and writing skills are important to overall literacy development and long-term academic success (Lonigan et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref1">36</reflink>]; Puranik & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref2">53</reflink>]). Though there has historically been greater emphasis on reading, children's knowledge of the writing process and oral language develop concurrently (Diamond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]). In addition, children as young as two years old demonstrate writing ability through symbolic drawings that capture thoughts and ideas (Dennis & Votteler, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]; Rowe & Neitzel, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref5">65</reflink>]). Despite many children's early display and interest in writing most students fail high stakes writing assessments by the time they reach high school (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref6">41</reflink>]). In response, an increased interest in promoting and scaffolding emergent writing skills has evolved as evidenced by the recent publication of guides for increasing efficacious writing instruction in early childhood classrooms (i.e., Byington & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]; Gerde et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]) and the inclusion of kindergarten writing benchmarks in the Common Core Standards (National Governors Association, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>]) and early learning standards designed to guide early childhood education (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref10">75</reflink>]). Though potentially challenging, early identification of those at risk for writing failure is essential, given that early writing skills are implicated not only in future literacy performance, but also in likelihood of assignment completion and academic motivation (Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]; Lust & Donica, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]; Neumann et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref13">44</reflink>]; National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref14">43</reflink>]). While attention to written expression instruction and assessment best practices is growing, comparatively little attention has been given to developmentally appropriate assessments and screeners for early writers. Currently, a consensus about best practices for written expression screening and assessment of young writers has yet to be reached. This paper aimed to identify both formal and informal written expression assessments designed for emergent writer populations using the simple view of writing (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>]) as a framework to guide organization of the existing research on these tools.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-3">Conceptualizing Early Literacy and Emergent Writers</hd> <p>The term "emergent writer" is typically used to describe children ages three to five who are engaged in the developmental process of learning to write (Clay, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]). Children's print awareness, including their knowledge of the writing process, concurrently develops with their letter-sound knowledge (Diamond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]) and children begin to construct words and sentences around pre-school and kindergarten. Indeed, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) and the National Research Council found that early writing ability is linked to improved overall literacy outcomes (National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref18">43</reflink>]; Shanahan & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref19">67</reflink>]). Specifically, early name writing ability was linked to later decoding, comprehension, and spelling skills in a comprehensive meta-analysis of 275 peer reviewed studies (Shanahan & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref20">67</reflink>]). In addition, early writing skills (i.e. writing appropriate letters in response to letter-sound; symbolic writing to express meaning) have been found to be important intervention targets for literacy outcomes (Snow et al., 1998). Overall, the process of learning to write is integral to the development of literacy, as skills such as spelling and letter formation reinforce letter naming, word reading, and phonemic awareness (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]; O'Connor & Jenkins, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref22">46</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-4">The Simple View of Writing</hd> <p>The Simple View of Writing is a theoretical framework for understanding how young students learn to write (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]; Juel et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]). The simple view of writing, often depicted as a triangle, posits that writing is composed of three constructs, transcription and text generation, that are supported by the third construct of working memory. Transcription processes deal with translating thoughts into meaningful symbols and includes processes such as scribbling, drawing, handwriting, and spelling. Text generation, on the other hand, involves learners producing text to convey their intended ideas. Text generation includes the process of selecting words, producing sentences, and crafting paragraphs. Mastery of transcription processes can help support a students' text generation abilities, however it can also function to constrain the writing process (e.g., Rocha et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref25">63</reflink>]). Emergent writing skills (i.e., lower order transcription or text generation skills) also appear to develop at different rates and without concrete stages (Levin et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]; Puranik & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref27">50</reflink>]; Tolchinsky, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref28">74</reflink>]). Therefore, both transcription and text generation processes should be considered when assessing emergent writers.</p> <p>Though more detailed frameworks such as the not-so-Simple-View of Writing have emerged that encompass additional components central to successful writing (Berninger & Amtmann, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]; Berninger & Winn, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]), the Simple View of Writing more parsimoniously captures the main components of writing development that can be captured by literacy screeners and that is often the focus of early childhood standards for writing (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref31">75</reflink>]). Additionally, students' early transcription skills are highly related to their later writing composition abilities (Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; Puranik & Al Otaiba, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref33">52</reflink>]) and additional components (e.g., self-regulation) may be better captured through dual screening of academics and behavior (Reid et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref34">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-5">National Standards and Early Writing Instruction</hd> <p>Many books and articles are available detailing best instructional practices to foster early writing skills in preschool and kindergarten populations (Atwell, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]; Byington & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]; Calkins, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>]; Gerde et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]; Graves, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>]; Teale & Sulzby, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref40">71</reflink>]). Recently updated national standards (i.e., the Common Core State Standards) also include the expectation that kindergarteners engage in transcription and text generation written expression activities by the end of the school year. Early writers are expected to print letters, match written letters to phonemes, spell simple words, and use a combination of drawing, dictating, and writing to communicate experiences, stories, people, objects, or events (National Governors Association, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]). These standards, however, do not extend to early childhood settings where children ages 3–5 are typically served (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref42">75</reflink>]). Activities in these settings are typically guided by early childhood standards which vary across states and are not always well-aligned with the expectations of national standards and instead reflect an emphasis on transcription over text generation (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref43">75</reflink>]; Quinn & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref44">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the existence of standards to guide instructional activities, much less is known about effective early writing instruction and practices in preschool and kindergarten classrooms compared to early reading practices (Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>]; Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]). A systematic review of writing instruction's impact on early literacy outcomes from 1990 to 2013 did find positive effects (g = 0.44, 95% Cis [0.27, 0.60]) for numerous forms of writing instruction in preschool classrooms (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>]). The mere 18 studies identified by Hall et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]) included instructional practices that emphasized both lower order transcription and text generation skills. Edwards ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref49">17</reflink>]) found similar results in his review of writing instruction in kindergarten populations. Overall, direct instruction of transcription skills (i.e., spelling, handwriting) were found to have positive effects on overall literacy. Notably, Edwards ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref50">17</reflink>]) found limited evidence of studies examining transcription skills and kindergarten written expression instructional practice continues to be an identified area for further study (Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref51">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>As revealed in reviews of both preschool and kindergarten writing instruction, transcription skills such as letter formation appear to be more frequently emphasized over text generation in emergent writing instruction (Diamond et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]; Levin et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref53">35</reflink>]; Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref54">56</reflink>]). This pattern is also reflected in studies of the early childhood standards to guide writing (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref55">75</reflink>]). This is likely because poor transcription skills can constrain text generation and overall writing abilities (Olive & Kellogg, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref56">47</reflink>]) while strong transcription skills in early grades have been shown to be related to later writing achievement (Puranik & Al Otaiba, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref57">52</reflink>]). Although high level text generation activities (such as paragraph construction) may be constrained by transcription skills for early writers, lower-level text generation skills such as planning through story-telling or symbolic writing through play do appear to have a positive effect on student literacy outcomes and should also be incorporated into early instruction (Byington & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>]; Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]). National standards for kindergarten learners also expect skill development in both transcription (i.e. print letters in accordance to phonemes) and text generation (writing/drawing about an experience, story, etc.). Instructional efforts must be accompanied by ways to measure student performance. For writing, measurement approaches congruent with these early writing national standards are needed.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-6">Measuring Writing Skills</hd> <p>Numerous different approaches to measuring student skills are available and they differ based on the purpose for which they were designed. For example, while some measures are designed to be summative in nature and therefore include many skills and are used less frequently, other assessments that are diagnostic in nature, involve the collection of very detailed information regarding a specific skill for the purpose of determining whether or not a student has difficulty in a specific skill area. Examples of summative measures of writing include statewide assessments of skill that are typically given to all students once a year and are potentially used for high stakes decisions about both student and teacher performance. There are also writing measures that are designed to be diagnostic and therefore gather a depth of information about a skill and are typically only used when there is some concern regarding that specific area of performance. An example of a diagnostic writing measure is the Test of Written Expression (TOWL; Hammill & Larsen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]). The measurement type of interest for the current study is screening measures which are designed to be brief to administer such that they can be used for all students (e.g., universal screening) in a particular learning environment and they yield information that allows for identification of which students are at-risk for poor performance in a particular skill area. Measures designed for universal screening (e.g., curriculum-based measures) can often be used for progress monitoring purposes but that is not always the case.</p> <p>While teachers have a range of measures to assess emergent reading skills to ensure students are meeting benchmarks (e.g., aimsweb, DIBELS), the availability of universal screeners for early writers is less clear (Ritchey, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref61">61</reflink>]). Universal screening for academic risk involves conducting brief, universal assessments with students to identify those in need of more intensive instruction. The process of universal screening is typically conducted in the context of Multitier Systems of Support (MTSS), a prevention-focused framework that consists of multi-tier implementation, student assessment and decision-making, evidenced-based interventions, procedural integrity, and the development of systems-level capacity (Glover & DiPerna, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]). Universal screening, an integral part of the student assessment procedures required in MTSS, aims to improve student outcomes by promptly identifying those at risk for academic difficulties. This allows for prompt provision of intervention, therefore mitigating future writing risk by informing the intensity of instruction in ways that improve student performance (Parker et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref63">48</reflink>]; Partanen & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref64">49</reflink>]; Sittner Bridges & Catts, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref65">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-7">Measuring Early Writing</hd> <p>Assessing student writing skills is a difficult task (Engemann & Gallagher, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]). Compared to early reading, technically adequate screening tools responsive to the needs of developing writers or best practice standards for early written expression assessment have not yet been conclusively identified in the empirical literature (Coker & Ritchey, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]; Ritchey, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref68">61</reflink>]). Writing screeners for beginning grades do exist, however available measures for early written expression have not been comprehensively summarized. While Ritchey's ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref69">61</reflink>]) practitioner guide to progress monitoring tools for beginning writers details the great need for these assessments, discussion was limited to detailing Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) and comprehensive reviews focusing on early writing assessment have not been conducted. The inclusion of kindergarten writing benchmarks in the Common Core Standards (National Governors Association, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref70">42</reflink>]) and the known link between early writing skills and academic outcomes (Snow et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref71">70</reflink>]) underscore the need for further identifying or developing low-cost assessment tools appropriate for emergent writers. Detailing the state of the literature regarding early writing assessment will not only help educational stakeholders make informed decisions, but also aid researchers in identifying promising areas for future study and measure development.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-8">Purpose of Study</hd> <p>Early literacy skills are important for long-term school success. As evidenced by educational standards (National Governors Association, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref72">42</reflink>]), there has been an increased interest in examining and bolstering writing skills in young learners. Though there are systematic reviews that examine early writing instruction (Hall et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref73">26</reflink>]; Shanahan & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref74">67</reflink>]) and available handwriting assessments (Van Hartingsveldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref75">76</reflink>]), there remains a dearth of readily available empirical information on assessment tools appropriate for use as early written expression screeners. Early writing assessment and screening tools do exist, however, and are used by some school districts, state departments of education (e.g., Ohio Diagnostic Assessments Grade K Writing Screener, Ohio Department of Education), teachers, school psychologists, and researchers to assess preschool and kindergarten students. These vary from standardized, norm referenced assessments to observational checklists. The purpose of this study was to identify early writing tools and review their technical adequacy. Following the Simple View of Writing, writing assessment tools were characterized by assessing whether they appeared to measure components of transcription, text generation, or both.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-9">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187189959-10">Source Identification and Extraction from Databases</hd> <p>A systematic review following PRISMA (Moher et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref76">40</reflink>]) guidelines was conducted to investigate the availability of early writing assessment tools (See Appendix Fig. 1). Articles were identified via ERIC EBSCOhost and included searches of the Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Education Source, Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, APA PsycInfo, APA PsychTests, and Teacher Reference Center databases. A comprehensive list of search terms applicable to early writing assessment was generated to search these databases in July 2021. Search terms included <emph>early writing test or emergent writing test, early writing skills or early writing ability or early writing improvement, early writing evaluation or emergent writing evaluation, early writing ability or emergent writing ability, early writing progress monitoring or emergent writing progress monitoring, early writing assessment or emergent writing assessment, early writing rubrics or emergent writing rubrics, early writing tools or emergent writing tools, early writing measurement or emergent writing measurement, early writing curriculum based measurement, writing assessment or writing evaluation or writing tool or writing rubric or writing curriculum based measurement AND early childhood education or preschool or kindergarten or young children or pre-kindergarten or early years.</emph></p> <p>Sources were limited to publications between 1990 and 2022 (upper bound on EBSCOhost), as research into early literacy assessment and instruction burgeoned in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Tindal, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref77">73</reflink>]). All publication types (e.g. academic journals, dissertations, reports) were included in this phase and the initial search yielded 1,293 documents.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-11">Data Consolidation and Inclusion Criteria</hd> <p>A database of all sources identified were compiled into Rayyan QCRI (https://rayyan.qcri.org/), an online systematic review software program. Duplicate articles (n = 591) were identified and removed, resulting in 702 unique records. To be included in the review, sources had to include the following: a study focused on writing or literacy (reading and writing) skills or tool construction, inclusion of a tool or group of tools that measured academic or pre-academic writing skill, contain a measure appropriate for preschool, pre-kindergarten or kindergarten age range (3 to 6 years), and be published in a peer reviewed journal. Sources were excluded if they did not measure academic or pre-academic writing skills explicitly. For example, assessment tools that looked solely at self-regulation (i.e., behavior) or reading-only knowledge were excluded. Handwriting only or copying measures were excluded due to their emphasis on assessing fine motor skills (i.e., letter formation alone) instead of emergent literacy processes (i.e., alphabet letter knowledge and formation). Additionally, information and guidance on behavior screeners (e.g., Glover & Albers, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref78">22</reflink>]) and handwriting assessments are readily available for researchers and practitioners (Van Hartingsveldt et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref79">76</reflink>]). Books, chapters, opinion pieces, introduction to special issues, newsletters, and sources written or examining writing in a foreign language were excluded.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-12">Abstract Screening</hd> <p>Initially, 90 of the same sources were independently coded by each rater (first author and graduate student assistant) for training purposes over several training sessions to achieve reliability on inclusion and exclusion criteria. After training, all initially identified titles and abstracts were divided among raters, independently screened, and compared to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The interrater reliability (IRR) for all coders was assessed at this stage by examining percentage agreement on 35% of the sample. The IRR between raters on sources was 92% at this stage. Disagreements were resolved through discussion between raters on each abstract and title until a consensus was reached. At this stage, 533 documents were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, resulting in 169 articles.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-13">Article Screening</hd> <p>During the second round, all articles (n = 169) were read in their entirety to ensure they met all inclusion criteria. Approximately 35% (n = 60) of the total sample was independently coded by each rater for reliability. The resulting IRR was 90%. In cases of disagreement, each rater read the article a second time and engaged in discussion until consensus was reached. After obtaining IRR, the 109 remaining articles were divided evenly among raters, independently read, and compared to inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 71 articles initially met the inclusion criteria. On second review of the first author, an additional 12 articles were excluded at this stage due to being written in English but examining writing in foreign languages and/or not meeting qualifications as an empirical study. This resulted in a final total of 59 articles (see Appendix Fig. 1).</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-14">Data Extraction</hd> <p>Data were extracted from each article by the first author and included the names of measure(s), grade utilized with, and type of measure(s) (i.e., pre-academic, literacy, or writing). Pre-academic tools measured broad pre-academic skills (e.g., pre- reading, pre-writing, and pre-mathematics), literacy tools assessed skills important for reading and writing, and writing tools focused more narrowly on writing. These assessment tools or groups of tools were further categorized by whether they produced numeric or descriptive scores (i.e., quantitative or qualitative) and technical properties of the instrument (i.e., reliability, validity) were recorded when available. Further, each writing measure or group of measures was examined to indicate whether it captured the concepts of text generation, transcription, or both. Additionally, each assessment tool was categorized as free or for purchase.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-15">Results</hd> <p>Using the procedures above, the final sample included 59 studies. Of the 59 studies, 49 (83.05%) included writing-only measurement methods, 7 (11.86%) included both reading and writing measures, and 3 (5.08%) used pre-academic measures with components intended to capture early writing (See Tables 1 and 2). Of the studies focused on early writing assessment only, around 41% (<emph>n</emph> = 20) utilized a combination of early writing measures rather than a single measurement method (<emph>n</emph> = 39; 79.59%).</p> <p>Table 1 Commonly used, publicly available early writing measures and methods</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Name of Measure/ Method</p></th><th align="left"><p>Target Population</p></th><th align="left"><p>Provides Quantitative Score(s)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Measures Transcription</p></th><th align="left"><p>Measures Text Generation</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of studies</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Name Writing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool and Kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Combination of Name Writing; Letter Writing; Word Spelling; (Story Composition) tasks**</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool and Kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>No (Yes)**</p></td><td align="left"><p>7 (9)**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Combination of differing transcription and writing tasks*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool and Kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/a*</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>N/a*</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Early Writing Curriculum-Based Measurement</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Writing Assessment Scale for the Early Years Foundation Scale Profile (EYFSP; Qualifications & Curriculum Authority, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2008</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Coker and Ritchey's (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2010</xref>) Sentence Writing Rubric</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The WRITE! Developmental Writing Task and/or Rating Technique for Observing Early Progress (Clay, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2002</xref>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Preschool</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left"><p>Yes</p></td><td align="left"><p>No</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table includes methods and tools reported in the empirical literature in at least 2 studies included in this review <sups>*</sups> Differing writing tasks at the name, letter, word, sentence, and/or paragraph level. N/a is represented as different studies assessed preschool, kindergarten or both. N/A is represented under text generation as some methods that include paragraph level tasks attempted to measure text generation <sups>**</sups> Items in parentheses indicate results when Story Composition tasks are included in assessment methods</p> <p>Table 2 Other Publicly available early writing measures identified in review</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Name of Measure/ Method</p></th><th align="left"><p>Citation</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Big Writing: Standards for Writing Assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Wilson, 2016 as cited in Adams & Simmons, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Early Writing Scale</p></td><td align="left"><p>Heldsinger & Humphry, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2013</xref></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Social Semiotic Assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Kesler, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2020</xref></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Nixon & Topping Rubric</p></td><td align="left"><p>Nixon & Topping, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2001</xref></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The Developmental Writing Scale</p><p> Writing Concepts of School-Home Early Language and Literacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Snow et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">1995</xref></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Write Start! Writing Assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Rowe & Wilson, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2015</xref></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Writing Task Protocol</p></td><td align="left"><p>Friedrich et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2019</xref></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table includes methods named in a single study as a standalone tool. Does not include a list of all combination of writing tasks reviewed (see Note in Table 1)</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-16">Identified Early Writing Assessment Tools and Methods</hd> <p>Of studies with only writing measures, the most frequently utilized measure was some form of Name Writing, with about 45% (<emph>n</emph> = 22) of studies employing this assessment method. Additionally, of the studies that used Name Writing as an assessment tool, about 36% (<emph>n</emph> = 8) used it as the sole early writing indicator. After Name Writing, the most common assessment method was a group of tasks that included some form of Name Writing, Letter Writing, and Spelling tasks with about 8 studies (16.32%) using this specific combination. Various forms of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM; as identified by the authors) (<emph>n</emph> = 6; 12.24%) and adaptations of Coker and Ritchey's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]) Sentence Writing Rubric (<emph>n</emph> = 4; 20%) were also used. See Table 1 for a condensed list of free, commonly used (i.e., represented at least twice in empirical literature) early writing assessment measures and methods. Outside of the 8 studies that included some form of Name Writing, Letter Writing, and Spelling, the remaining 12 studies that employed group measures used unique combinations of various literacy tasks to represent the construct of early writing.</p> <p>As noted in Table 1, the seven tools identified through the review included two measures designed with a focus on preschool-aged children only, two measures focused on kindergarten only, with the remaining tools designed for use across preschool and kindergarten. Most of the writing measures identified generate a quantitative score and all of them are designed to measure transcription skills. Considerably fewer, however, include measure of text generation. For example, the most common measure in the literature, Name Writing, is not designed to measure text generation capacity. Only three of the measures identified (see Table 1) measure text generation skills and of those, only two of them are designed for use with preschool children.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-17">Commercially Available Early Writing Assessment Measures</hd> <p>Nine studies (18.36%) employed at least one subtest of a commercially available assessment instrument to represent a portion of or the entire construct of early writing skills. The most used assessment instrument (<emph>n</emph> = 4) was the Test of Early Written Language, Second Edition (TEWL2; Hresko et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref81">30</reflink>]) which is appropriate for both preschool and kindergarten populations. Writing subtests and scales from The British Ability Scales (BAS II, Elliott et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref82">18</reflink>]), the Woodcock Johnson III/IV (Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref83">77</reflink>]), and the Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS, Carrow-Woolfolk, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref84">10</reflink>]) were also represented in this review, however, they are representative of kindergarten-age populations only. Of note, one study reported using the Name Writing subtest of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS-PreK; Invernizzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref85">31</reflink>]) with a preschool age population. Additional measures identified through the search that only showed up in one study are included in Table 2.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-18">Reported Technical Properties of Early Writing Assessment Methods</hd> <p>Due to differences in scoring practices across common measures, it was not possible to summarize the technical properties for each method. However, of the 49 studies including specific early writing assessment methods, all but 5 (about 10%) reported or addressed some form of technical property for the writing instruments employed with almost 90% of articles reporting types of reliability. The most common technical property reported was inter-rater reliability with 32 out of 49 studies (65%) reporting some form of this data. Additionally, 12 studies or about 25% reported some form of validity with 7 or about 14% reporting correlations between criterion measures (i.e. TEWL-2) or other literacy-based assessments and outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-19">Discussion</hd> <p>While empirical investigation into written expression instruction and assessment best practices is growing, comparatively little attention has been given to early writing assessment. This is troubling as early writing skills have been shown to impact important academic outcomes (Donica et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref86">16</reflink>]; Lust & Donica, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref87">37</reflink>]; Neumann et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref88">44</reflink>]; National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref89">43</reflink>]) and early identification of difficulties may facilitate early intervention efforts. This paper aimed to identify and synthesize existing early writing assessment tools. Results of the current review indicate that only 59 studies identified in the empirical, peer-reviewed literature, included writing assessment methods appropriate for the preschool and/or kindergarten populations. Additionally, of the total articles reviewed, about 83% included writing-specific measurement rather than pre-academic or literacy focused methods, which supports the need to specifically measure writing skills, in addition to other early academic skill development. The most frequently utilized assessment method identified was Name Writing, though few (< 10) studies utilized this method as a sole indicator of early writing skill. The common use of Name Writing as an assessment method is unsurprising, as the NELP report found Name Writing to be a predictor of literacy achievement (Shanahan & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref90">67</reflink>]) over 14 years ago. However, over a decade since this report was published, and despite claims that the literature in this area has greatly increased (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref91">9</reflink>]), results of this review indicate that Name Writing continues to be the most researched indicator of early writing proficiency despite the development of other tools. Notably, though many of the commonly employed assessment methods did produce at least one quantitative score, many studies included in the review did not appear to share common scoring methods even when using similar tasks and assessment methods. This finding also echoes the 2008 NELP report which reported that studies investigating early writing tasks (i.e. Name Writing) did not use common scoring methods (Shanahan & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref92">67</reflink>]). For example, one study included in this review (McNeill et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref93">38</reflink>]) scored a Name Writing task using a 14-point scale, while another, (Milburn et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref94">39</reflink>]) utilized a 9-point scale for a similar task. It appears that a lack of common scoring systems continues to persist for even the most common early writing measurement methods. Establishing a common scoring system would be beneficial to both research and practice related to early writing. For example, in research, it is not possible to compare performance across studies when different scales for interpreting student performance are used. This lack of consistency in the research also impacts practice because it leaves teachers without direction regarding the best way to interpret student performance. If teachers are unable to make conclusions about student performance, then it becomes difficult to know which students may need support.</p> <p>An additional issue to consider is that Name Writing, though a valid indicator of early writing skills (Puranik & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref95">54</reflink>]), does not measure the process of text generation. Perhaps that is why several studies included in this review used numerous writing tasks at the name, letter, word, and/or even paragraph level, to represent the construct of early writing (Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref96">55</reflink>]; Quinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref97">59</reflink>]; Ritchey, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref98">62</reflink>]; Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref99">72</reflink>]) though they, too, did not use consistent batteries of measures or scoring approaches. Indeed, some studies included a high number of tasks and a range of diverse scoring methods (Puranik & Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref100">54</reflink>]; Puranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref101">51</reflink>]). This finding is reflective of the nature of writing and writing measurement more generally as a multidimensional construct that is typically measured using a collection of measures or metrics instead of a single outcome. Like the lack of consistency regarding how to score Name Writing, this issue may limit the ability of educators to effectively implement and interpret early writing screening.</p> <p>Findings also indicate few studies use commercially available assessment instruments (e.g., TEWL-2) that require consistent scoring. This may be due to the limited availability of norm-referenced instruments that allow a downward extension in the assessment of early writing kills (i.e. appropriate for kindergarten <emph>and</emph> preschool aged- populations). However, without cohesive and replicated research on early writing assessment strategies, the development of new commercially and publicly available tools will likely remain challenging. Additionally, only about a quarter of studies included in this review reported a form of validity coefficients, indicating further need for low-cost assessment methods to be validated against instruments such as the TEWL-2 in lieu of best practice standards.</p> <p>Most of the measures identified for use with preschool and kindergarten-aged children were focused on measuring transcription skills. Although transcription is a necessary writing skill, also important is text generation, given its inclusion in the Common Core State Standards for kindergarten (Tortorelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref102">75</reflink>]; Quinn & Bingham, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref103">58</reflink>]). Ideally, measures designed to assess writing in early childhood would include both transcription and text generation to provide a more seamless connection across these instructional settings and to reflect the skill requirements outlined in instructional standards for early childhood. Measures identified through this search included only three that measured text generation and only two of those were designed for preschool-aged students. This pattern is consistent with past examinations of the literature regarding early writing that have also found emphasis on transcription over other composing skills measures to assess writing in early childhood settings.</p> <p>This study further reveals the understudied nature of early and emergent writing assessment and highlights a lack of consensus in the empirical literature regarding strategies applicable to assessing emergent writers. It also reveals a general lack of technical consideration, as the primary reported statistic regarding reliability and validity was inter-rater reliability which does little more than demonstrate consistency among different scorers (Hallgren, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref104">27</reflink>]). Though some studies (e.g., Keller-Margulis et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref105">33</reflink>]) included in this review did assess concurrent validity for early writing assessment methods against a norm-referenced criterion, this did not appear to be typical. Overall, the lack of consistency across early writing assessment methods, scoring, and investigation of technical properties make it difficult to compare findings and make confident claims about the utility of different methods. Synthesizing what is currently known about preschool and kindergarten writing assessment approaches points to a need for further development of these tools through research before practitioners can make truly informed decisions about best early writing assessment approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-20">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Though a strong contribution to the early writing assessment literature, this review has several limitations. First, the current study focused on empirical articles found in peer-reviewed journals. The findings presented in this study are intended to synthesize the state of researcher utilized measurement of early writing. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of early written expression tools and approaches. For example, books, book chapters, and commercially available products that are not identified by this review may include assessment tools that are developmentally appropriate for early writers. Authors of tools not captured in this work are encouraged to investigate and publish technical information in peer reviewed journals for wider dissemination. Additionally, due to resources, the articles and assessment tools investigated in this work were limited to those available in and applied to English language writing. Future studies should consider researching available early writing assessment tools across languages and cultures, and expand on best assessment practices for emergent bilingual students (Schulz, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref106">66</reflink>]). Of note, the first author had to make unilateral decisions during the data extraction phase and therefore rater agreement on decisions made at this stage are unavailable. Future reviews should replicate this study using a team-based approach.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-21">Conclusions</hd> <p>This review suggests a promising area for further study, including utilization and further validation of early writing rubrics and downward extensions of CBM for young students. Further, this synthesis of empirically studied assessment tools may help catalyze technical improvements to current early writing assessment methods and provide further clarification regarding best practices for the assessment of emergent writers, beyond the method of Name Writing alone. Researchers are encouraged to draw from the existing literature when making scoring decisions and increase dissemination of findings from previously published tools and methods.</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-22">Appendix</hd> <p>Please see Fig. 1</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Prisma flowchart</p> <hd id="AN0187189959-23">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187189959-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams A-M, Simmons FR. Exploring individual and gender differences in early writing performance. Reading & Writing. 2019; 32: 235-263. 10.1007/s11145-018-9859-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Atwell N. In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. 1987; Heinemann Educational Books</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref29" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Amtmann DSwanson HL, Harris KR, Graham S. Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. Handbook of Learning Disabilities. 2003; The Guilford Press: 345-363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Winn WMacArthur CA, Graham S, Fitzgerald J. Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. Handbook of Writing Research. 2006; The Guilford Press: 96-114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Vaughan KB, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Rogan LW, Brooks A, Reed E, Graham S. Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89: 652-666https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Graham S, Richards T. Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2002; 35: 39-56. 10.1177/002221940203500104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Byington TA, Kim Y. Promoting preschoolers' emergent writing. YC Young Children. 2017; 72; 5: 74-82https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/90015861">www.jstor.org/stable/90015861</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref37" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Calkins LM. Lessons from a child: On the teaching and learning of writing. 1983; Heinemann Educational Books Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref91" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> *Campbell, K, Chen, Y.-J, Cunningham, A. E, & Shenoy, S. (2019). Preschool children's early writing: repeated measures reveal growing but variable trajectories. Reading & Writing, 32, 939–961.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9893-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carrow-Woolfolk E. Oral and written language scales. 1995; American Guidance Service; 93</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clay MM. Change over time in children's literacy development. 2001; Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clay MM. An observation survey of early literacy achievement. 20022; Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Coker, D. L, & Ritchey, K. D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of writing in kindergarten and first grade: An investigation of production and qualitative scores. Exceptional Children, 76, 175-193.https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dennis LR, Votteler NK. Preschool teachers and children's emergent writing: Supporting diverse learners. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2013; 41: 439-446. 10.1007/s10643-012-0563-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamond KE, Gerde HK, Powell DR. Development in early literacy skills during the pre-kindergarten year in Head Start: Relations between growth in children's writing and understanding of letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2008; 23: 467-478. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.05.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donica DK, Goins A, Wagner L. Effectiveness of handwriting readiness programs on postural control, hand control, and letter and number formation in head start classrooms. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention. 2013; 6: 81-93. 10.1080/19411243.2013.810938</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards L. Writing instruction in kindergarten: Examining an emerging area of research for children with writing and reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2003; 36: 136-148. 10.1177/002221940303600206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott CD, Smith P, McCulloch K. British ability scales II: technical manual. 1997; NferNelson</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engemann J, Gallagher T. The conundrum of classroom writing assessment. Brock Education A Journal of Educational Research and Practice. 2006; 16: 33-44. 10.26522/brocked.v16i1.77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Friedrich, N, Portier, C, & Peterson, S. S. (2019). Identifying patterns in and relationships between graphic representations and talk of northern Canadian rural and indigenous children. Language & Literacy: A Canadian Educational E-Journal, 21, 39–56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerde HK, Bingham GE, Wasik BA. Writing in early childhood classrooms: Guidance for best practices. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2012; 40: 351-359. 10.1007/s10643-012-0531-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glover TA, Albers CA. Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments. Journal of School Psychology. 2007; 45: 117-135. 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glover TA, DiPerna JC. Service delivery for response to intervention: Core components and directions for future research. School Psychology Review. 2007; 36: 526-540. 10.1080/02796015.2007.12087916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Harris KR, Fink B. Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2000; 92: 620-633https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graves DH. Writing: Teachers and children at work. 1983; Heinemann Educational Books</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall AH, Simpson A, Guo Y, Wang S. Examining the effects of preschool writing instruction on emergent literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2015; 54: 115-134. 10.1080/19388071.2014.991883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 2012; 8: 23-34. 10.20982/2Ftqmp.08.1.p023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammill DD, Larsen SC. Test of Written Language. 20094; Pearson</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Heldsinger, S. A, & Humphry, S. M. (2013). Using calibrated exemplars in the teacher-assessment of writing: an empirical study. Educational Research, 55(3), 219-235.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.825159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hresko WP, Herron SR, Peak PK. Test of Early Written Language (TEWL-2). 1996; PsychCorp/Pearson</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Invernizzi M, Sullivan A, Meier J, Swank K. PALS-Pre-K teacher's manual. 2004; University of Virginia Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juel C, Griffith PL, Gough PB. Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1986; 78: 243-255https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Keller-Margulis, M. A, Ochs, S, Reid, E. K, Faith, E. L, & Schanding Jr, G. T. (2019). Validity and Diagnostic Accuracy of Early Written Expression Screeners in Kindergarten. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37, 539-552.https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918769978</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kesler, T. (2020). "Does it have to be a real story?" A social semiotic assessment of an emergent writer. Language & Education, 34, 440–468.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1766060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin I, Vries AB, Aram D, Bus A. Writing starts with own name writing: From scribbling to conventional spelling in Israeli and Dutch children. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2005; 26: 463-477. 10.1017/S0142716405050253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL. Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36: 596-613https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lust CA, Donica DK. Effectiveness of a handwriting readiness program in Head Start: A two-group controlled trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2011; 65: 560-568. 10.5014/ajot.2011.000612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *McNeill, B. C, Westerveld, M, van Bysterveldt, A, Boyd, L, & Gillon, G. (2013). Early name writing and invented-spelling development. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 48, 50-65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Milburn, T. F, Hipfner-Boucher, K, Weitzman, E, Greenberg, J, Pelletier, J, & Girolametto, L. (2017). Cognitive, linguistic and print-related predictors of preschool children's word spelling and name writing. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(1), 111-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415624482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DGPrisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS med. 2009; 6; 7: e1000097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2012). The nation's report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. Preventing reading difficulties in young children. 1998; National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neumann MM, Hood M, Ford RM. Using environmental print to enhance emergent literacy and print motivation. Reading and Writing. 2013; 26: 771-793. 10.1007/s11145-012-9390-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Nixon, J. G, & Topping, K. J. (2001). Emergent writing: The impact of structured peer interaction. Educational Psychology, 21, 41-58.https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410123268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor RE, Jenkins JR. Improving the generalization of sound/symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling to kindergarten children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education. 1995; 29: 255-275. 10.1177/002246699502900301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olive T, Kellogg RT. Concurrent activation of high-and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition. 2002; 30: 594-600. 10.3758/BF03194960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker DC, Burns MK, McMaster KL, Shapiro ES. Extending curriculum-based assessment to early writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2012; 27: 33-43. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00348.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Partanen M, Siegel LS. Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities. Reading and Writing. 2014; 27: 665-684. 10.1007/s11145-013-9472-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik CS, Lonigan CJ. From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children's developing knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing. 2011; 24; 5: 567-589. 10.1007/s11145-009-9220-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puranik CS, Boss E, Wanless S. Relations between self-regulation and early writing: Domain specific or task dependent?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019; 46: 228-239. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Puranik, C. S, & Al Otaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spelling to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25, 1523-1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9331-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Puranik, C. S, & Lonigan, C. J. (2012). Early writing deficits in preschoolers with oral language difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411423423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Puranik, C. S, & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 453-467.https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.79</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Puranik, C. S, Lonigan, C. J, & Kim, Y. S. (2011). Contributions of emergent literacy skills to name writing, letter writing, and spelling in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 465-474.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Puranik, C. S, Schreiber, S, Estabrook, E, & O'Donnell, E. (2014). Comparison of name-writing rubrics: Is there a gold standard? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 16-23.https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413502390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Early years foundation stage: Profile handbook. 2008; QCA</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn MF, Bingham GE. The nature and measurement of children's early composing. Reading Research Quarterly. 2019; 54; 2: 213-235https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/10.1002/rrq.232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Quinn, M. F, Bingham, G. E, & Gerde, H. K. (2021). Who writes what when?: Examining children's early composing. Reading and Writing, 34, 79-107.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10063-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Reid, E. K, Keller-Margulis, M. A, Schanding Jr, G. T, & Tolar, T. D. (2019). Predicting kindergarten writing achievement using early written expression and behavior screening. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 35, 215-233.https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2019.1568333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritchey KD. Learning to write: Progress-monitoring tools for beginning and at-risk writers. Teaching Exceptional Children. 2006; 39: 22-27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritchey KD. The building blocks of writing: Learning to write letters and spell words. Reading and Writing. 2008; 21: 27-47. 10.1007/s11145-007-9063-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rocha RS, Castro SL, Limpo T. The role of transcription and executive functions in writing: A longitudinal study in the transition from primary to intermediate Grades. Reading and Writing. 2022; 35; 8: 1911-1932. 10.1007/s11145-022-10256-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Rowe, D. W, & Wilson, S. J. (2015). The development of a descriptive measure of early childhood writing: Results from the Write Start! writing assessment. Journal of Literacy Research, 47, 245-292.https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15619723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowe DW, Neitzel C. Interest and agency in 2-and 3-year-olds' participation in emergent writing. Reading Research Quarterly. 2010; 45; 2: 169-195. 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schulz MM. Effective writing assessment and instruction for young English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2009; 37: 57-62. 10.1007/s10643-009-0317-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan T, Lonigan CJ. The National Early Literacy Panel: A summary of the process and the report. Educational Researcher. 2010; 39: 279-285. 10.3102/0013189X10369172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sittner Bridges M, Catts HW. The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2011; 44: 330-338. 10.1177/0022219411407863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow CE, Tabors PO, Nicholson PA, Kurland BF. SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and first-grade children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 1995; 10; 1: 37-48. 10.1080/02568549509594686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C, Burns, M. S, & Griffin, P. (1999). Language and literacy environments in preschools(ED426818). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED426818.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teale W, Sulzby E. Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood. 1986; Ablex</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas LJ, Gerde HK, Piasta SB, Logan JA, Bailet LL, Zettler-Greeley CM. The early writing skills of children identified as at-risk for literacy difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2020; 51: 392-402. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tindal G. Curriculum-based measurement: A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to the present. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2013; 2013: 1-29. 10.1155/2013/958530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky L. The cradle of culture and what children know about writing and numbers before being. 2003; Psychology Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tortorelli LS, Gerde HK, Rohloff R, Bingham GE. Ready, set, write: Early learning standards for writing in the Common Core era. Reading Research Quarterly. 2022; 57; 2: 729-752. 10.1002/rrq.436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Hartingsveldt MJ, De Groot IJ, Aarts PB, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Standardized tests of handwriting readiness: A systematic review of the literature. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. 2011; 53: 506-515. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03895.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, Mather N. Woodcock-Johnson III NU Complete. 2001; Riverside Publishing</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Katherine L. Buchanan; Milena Keller-Margulis; Amanda Hut; Weihua Fan; Sarah S. Mire and G. Thomas Schanding Jr</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref106"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1479585
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Systematic Review of Early Writing Assessment Tools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katherine+L%2E+Buchanan%22">Katherine L. Buchanan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Milena+Keller-Margulis%22">Milena Keller-Margulis</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7539-5375">0000-0001-7539-5375</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amanda+Hut%22">Amanda Hut</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weihua+Fan%22">Weihua Fan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarah+S%2E+Mire%22">Sarah S. Mire</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3763-3237">0000-0002-3763-3237</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22G%2E+Thomas+Schanding%22">G. Thomas Schanding</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-6664">0000-0003-0195-6664</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(6):1939-1949.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Evaluation%22">Writing Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergent+Literacy%22">Emergent Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Writing%22">Beginning Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Tests%22">Writing Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Naming%22">Naming</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alphabets%22">Alphabets</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spelling%22">Spelling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scoring%22">Scoring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01697-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: There is considerable research regarding measures of early reading but much less in early writing. Nevertheless, writing is a critical skill for success in school and early difficulties in writing are likely to persist without intervention. A necessary step toward identifying those students who need additional support is the use of screening tools. The purpose of this study was to identify tools used with emergent writers and summarize the current state of this empirical literature. A systematic review was conducted for publications between 1990 and 2022. A total of 59 studies focused on early writing for preschool or kindergarten students and met criteria for inclusion in the review. Results indicated the most used early writing measure was Name Writing followed by Letter Writing, and Spelling tasks with some studies using this specific combination of measures. Despite some consistency in the measures used, there was significant variation in the scoring approach. Review of technical adequacy indicated 65% of studies included reliability data while considerably fewer included validity. Future studies using consistent approaches to scoring early writing tasks and additional examinations of validity are needed to improve educators' ability to identify and intervene in this skill area.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1479585
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1479585
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01697-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 1939
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Writing Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emergent Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beginning Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Naming
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alphabets
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spelling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scoring
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Systematic Review of Early Writing Assessment Tools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katherine L. Buchanan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Milena Keller-Margulis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amanda Hut
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weihua Fan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarah S. Mire
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: G. Thomas Schanding
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1