The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Effect of Five Proofreading Conditions on the Spelling Performance of College Students with Learning Disabilities
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of five proofreading conditions on the spelling performance of 12 college students with learning disabilities on a composition activity. The proofreading conditions investigated were handwriting with no additional assistance, handwriting with a conventional print dictionary, handwriting with a handheld spelling checker, word processing with no additional assistance, and word processing with an integrated spelling checker. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the results, with proofreading condition used as a within-participants factor. Except for handwriting alone, all of the techniques resulted in significant reductions in the number of spelling errors in the students' written work; however, none of the techniques enabled the students to produce compositions with a mean level of spelling accuracy comparable to that of their nondisabled peers.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Students who were taught how to proofread to improve spelling only performed better in a condition in which they used a word processor with spellchecker”
From A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice (2024) · cites this paper as McNaughton et al., 1997
In the citing paper
“which means that the gains in spelling performance might have been due to the software and not to the instruction (McNaughton et al., 1997).”
From A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice (2024) · cites this paper as McNaughton et al., 1997
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- Antonoff, M., 1989, Personal Computing, 13, 112
- Arms, V. M., 1984, Educational Technology, 39
- 10.1177/105345129403000203 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221948902200712 · DOI
- Blandford, B. J., 1991, Dissertation Abstracts International, 51
- 10.1007/978-1-4684-6416-0_4 · DOI
- 10.1177/016264349001000401 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221947801100702 · DOI
- Dunham, T., 1987, Learning disabled college writers project.
- Dunn, L., 1981, Peabody picture vocabulary test—Revised.
- Educational Testing Service., 1989, Topics taken from the College Board English Composition Test.
- 10.2307/357381 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/371910 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221948902200208 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221949502800504 · DOI
- Gajria, M., 1994, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 236
- 10.1177/002246698802200202 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221948902200608 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221948702000107 · DOI
- Jastak, S., 1984, Wide range achievement test—Revised.
- Judd, C. M., 1989, Data analysis: A model-comparison approach.
- Keppel, G., 1982, Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook.
- Leuenberger, J., 1990, Learning Disabilities Focus, 5, 103
- 10.1177/002246699603000103 · DOI
- 10.2307/1510373 · DOI
- McNaughton, D., 1997, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 16
- Mercer, C. D., 1985, Teaching students with learning problems
- Merriam-Webster., 1984, Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary.
- 10.1177/0741088384001004004 · DOI
- Rapp, L. C., 1988, Proofreading skills and writing proficiency: Error detection, editing accuracy, and linguistic competence.
- Scardamalia, M., 1983, Psychology of written language: A developmental and educational perspective, 67
- Schumaker, J. B., 1981, Error monitoring: A learning strategy for improving academic performance of LD adolescents
- 10.1177/074193259101200404 · DOI
- 10.1177/105345129302800307 · DOI
- Siegel, S., 1988, Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences
- Stoddard, B., 1993, Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76, 10.58680/rte199315422 · DOI
- Wechsler, D., 1981, Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised.
- 10.1037/11774-000 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008 · Cited by 1,574
McDowall, A., & Kiseleva, M. (2024) · Neurodiversity · doi:10.1177/27546330241291769 · Cited by 43
“Students who were taught how to proofread to improve spelling only performed better in a condition in which they used a word processor with spell-checker, which means that the gains in spelling performance might have been due to the software and not to the instruction (McNaughton et al., 1997).”
Metadata
- Authors
- McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Clark, K.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Indiana University South Bend (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Learning Disabilities
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 643-651
- ISSN
- 0022-2194 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4780
- OpenAlex
- W2155774789
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Learning Disabilities (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- proofreading, spelling errors, learning disabilities, university students, handwriting, word processing, spelling accuracy, composition writing
- MeSH terms
- Achievement, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Learning Disabilities, Male, Microcomputers, Reading, Software, Verbal Learning, Writing
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
