The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling the development of written language
Open accessAbstract
Alternative models of the structure of individual and developmental differences of written composition and handwriting fluency were tested using confirmatory factor analysis of writing samples provided by first- and fourth-grade students. For both groups, a five-factor model provided the best fit to the data. Four of the factors represented aspects of written composition: macro-organization (use of top sentence and number and ordering of ideas), productivity (number and diversity of words used), complexity (mean length of T-unit and syntactic density), and spelling and punctuation. The fifth factor represented handwriting fluency. Handwriting fluency was correlated with written composition factors at both grades. The magnitude of developmental differences between first grade and fourth grade expressed as effect sizes varied for variables representing the five constructs: large effect sizes were found for productivity and handwriting fluency variables; moderate effect sizes were found for complexity and macro-organization variables; and minimal effect sizes were found for spelling and punctuation variables.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S. W., & Fitzgerald, J. (2005) · Cited by 2,327
Identifying the organization of writing processes
Haves, J. (1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,553
A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.
Hayes, J. R. (1996) · Cited by 1,442
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037//0012-1649.30.1.73 · Cited by 1,393
Self-citationGrammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3.
Hunt, K. W. (1965) · Cited by 1,124
Grammatical structures written at three grade levels
Hunt, K. W. (1965) · Cited by 996
Cognitive Processes in Writing
Gregg, L. W. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315630274 · Cited by 931
Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-0663.78.4.243 · Cited by 860
The Dynamics of Composing : Making Plans and Juggling Constraints
Flower (1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 687
Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach.
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170 · Cited by 566
Cited by
Sentence Writing Instruction for Young Struggling Writers: A Single-Case Study
Allen, A. A., & Scott, S. N. (2026) · Reading & Writing Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10573569.2026.2679262
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T.
- Venue
- Reading and Writing
- Published
- 2010-10-09
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 203-220
- ISSN
- 0922-4777 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0905
- OpenAlex
- W2038306480
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 41.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modeling the development of written language. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7
- The paper
- Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
