The Development of Early Writing Abilities in Elementary Students Identified with the Characteristics of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study examined the development of writing in students identified with varying levels of the two ADHD diagnostic characteristics of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Twenty-six academie screening files containing two prompted stories written at the beginning and end of grade 1, were studied.Eight of the files also contained a prompted story from the end of grade 2. In addition, each file contained a teacher completed behaviour rating scale assessing the student's levels of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The development ofwriting was examined through the use of four methodologies, a developmental writing content progression, a semantic analysis, a cohesion analysis, and a coherence measure.These methodologies were used to explore (a) generallevel ofwriting content, (b) idea production, (c) idea elaboration, (d) idea complexity, (e) cohesive ties, (t) cohesive errors, (g) adherence to the prompt, (h) adherence to a theme, and (i) interconnectedness ofideas.The major findings indicate significant correlations for both inattention and hyperactivity/ impulsivity with general writing content, cohesive errors, and the interconnectedness of ideas.These results indicate that students with progressively higher levels of inattention or hyperactivity/impulsivity experience more difficulties with the early stages of writing, and in particular have difficulty providing the appropriate connections among their ideas.These findings are interpreted with respect to existing theories of executive function deficits in students with ADHD (Barkley, 1997a(Barkley, , 1997b) ) and implications for education are discussed. Writing Development and ADHD Characteristics 4Rsum Cette tude exploratoire a examin le dveloppement de l'criture des lves identifis avec divers niveaux de deux charactristiques diagnostiques de ADHD: la difficult de l'attention et l'hyperactivit/impulsivit.Vingt-six fichiers contenant de l'information sur le fonctionnement scolaire des lves et deux rcits, produits au dbut et la fin de la premire anne scolaire, ont t tudis.Ces rcits ont t crits en rpondant des questions spcifiques.Huit de ces fichiers contenaient galement Wl rcit produit la fin de la deuxime anne scolaire.De plus, chaque fichier contenait ooe valuation de comportement complet par l'instituteur sur les niveaux de difficult d'attention et d'hyperactivit/impulsivit chez les lves.Le dveloppement de l'criture a t examin en utilisant quatre mthodologies: ooe progression dveloppementale du contenu de l'criture, ooe analyse smantique, ooe analyse de cohsion, et une mesure de cohrence.Ces mthodologies ont t utiliss pour explorer (a) le niveau gnral du contenu de l'criture, (b) la production des ides, (c) l'laboration des ides, (d) la complexit des ides, (e) les liens cohsifs, (f) les erreurs cohsives, (g) l'adhsion aux questions, (h) l'adhsion au thme, et (i) la connection entre ides.Les rsultats principaux dmontrent des corrlations significatives pour les difficults de l'attention et d 'hyperactivit/impulsivit avec le contenu gnral de l'criture, les erreurs cohsives, et la connection entre ides.Ces rsultats indique que les lves avec des niveaux progressivement plus lvs d'inattention ou d'hyperactivit/impulsivit ont plus de difficults au stage initial de l'criture, et en particulier, ont des difficults faire les liens entres leurs ides.Ces rsultats sont interprets par rapport aux thories existantes de la fonction des dficits excutif chez les lves avec ADHD (Barkley, 1997a(Barkley, , 1997b ) ), et peuvent contribuer a l'avancement de la recherche en ducation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".