Utility of the Spelling Sensitivity Score to analyze spellings of children with specific language impairment

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of the Spelling Sensitivity Score (SSS) beyond percentage correct scoring in analysing the spellings of children with specific language impairment (SLI). Participants were 31 children with SLI and 28 children with typical language in grades 2 through 4. Spellings of individual words were scored using two methods: (a) percentage correct and (b) SSS. Children with SLI scored lower than children with typical language when spelling was analysed with percentage correct scoring and with SSS scoring. Additionally, SSS scoring highlighted group differences in the nature of spelling errors. Children with SLI were more likely than children with typical language to omit elements and to represent elements with an illegal grapheme in words, whereas children with typical language were more likely than children with SLI to represent all elements with correct letters.

Written Language Production in Children With Developmental Language Disorder

“…The DLD group in high school produced fewer and less phonologically unacceptable spelling errors as compared to their TD peers of a corresponding chronological age, but they tended to produce phonologically unacceptable errors in higher proportion for an extended period of time. Moreover, Werfel and Krimm (2015) studied the number and the type of spelling errors children with DLD tented to produce in their written language production as compared to a group of TD children of a corresponding chronological age. According to the results of the study children with DLD used a significantly smaller number of correct words while writing as compared to those of their TD peers of a corresponding chronological age.…”

What methods of scoring young children's spelling best predict later spelling performance?

“…Our final two measures were the mixed nonbinary measures developed by Masterson and Apel () and used in a number of recent studies (e.g., Bailey, Arciuli, & Stancliffe, ; Clemens et al, ; Kim, Puranik, & Al Otaiba, ; McNeill, Wolter, & Gillon, ; Werfel & Krimm, ). For Spelling Sensitivity Score – Elements ( SSS‐E ), a child's spelling of a word is broken into elements, which for one‐morpheme words like those of the present study are letters or groups of letters that spell a single phoneme.…”

Translation and Transcription Processes in the Writing Skills of Children With Developmental Language Disorder

“…Over time, study participant selection criteria converged on the CELF's core language subtests. For the CELF, a cut-off of below −1 SD was reported in 26% ( k = 10) of studies (Alloway et al, 2017; Deacon et al, 2014; Dockrell & Connelly, 2015; Larkin & Snowling, 2008; Larkin et al, 2013; Silliman et al, 2006; Werfel & Krimm, 2015; Werfel et al, 2019; Williams et al, 2013, 2021), −1.33 SD in one study (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003), and −2 SD in four studies (Abbott et al, 2017; Critten et al, 2014; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; Stuart et al, 2020). Where studies reported a standardized measure of nonverbal ability ( k = 22, 56%), this most often was the matrices subtest of the British Ability Scales (e.g., Elliot et al, 1996; k = 9, 23%) or the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (e.g., Brown et al, 1990; k = 7, 18%).…”

“…The majority reflected standardized measures and reported some form of correct/incorrect scoring ( k = 19, 49%). In some studies, spelling attempts were scored based on the phonemes preserved within words, using the Spelling Sensitivity Score method (Apel & Lawrence, 2011; Werfel & Krimm, 2015). Others reflect the purpose of inquiry, for example how inflectional morphemes (Critten et al, 2014; Deacon et al, 2014; Larkin et al, 2013) and derivational morphemes (Critten et al, 2014; Deacon et al, 2014) are used, the application of phonological knowledge in spelling (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003; Goulandris et al, 2000; Larkin & Snowling, 2008; Williams et al, 2021), or the use of orthographic knowledge to spell more complex words (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003; Larkin et al, 2013; Williams et al, 2021).…”