EDP3004
krystalm8
Articel4.pdf
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rasd
Writing research involving children with autism spectrum disorder without a co-occurring intellectual disability: A systematic review using a language domains and mediational systems framework Matthew Carl Zajic*, Sarah Emily Wilson Curry School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 800784, Charlottesville, VA 22904, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords: Autism spectrum disorder Education Handwriting Language School-age Spelling Systematic review Writing
A B S T R A C T
Background: Descriptive and intervention research studies have identified writing as a challenge for many students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, relatively little remains known about how these studies have examined specific writing skills, particularly from a writing research perspective. This study systematically reviewed descriptive and intervention studies using a language domains and mediational systems framework to examine how studies have examined transcription (handwriting and spelling) and translation/text generation (written ex- pression) skills and associations between writing skills with language domain and mediational systems skills. Study quality indicators including reference to writing research and theory were also examined. Method: From an initial screening of 1,958 records, 46 studies (29 descriptive and 17 inter- vention) were retained for inclusion. Studies were coded for study characteristics, quality in- dicators, and reported writing and writing-associated skills. Results: Studies included 1,166 participants who were predominantly male with a verified ASD diagnosis but varied on other characteristics. Study quality was low for certain indicators (i.e., power analysis and generalization), and fewer studies referenced writing theory compared to writing research. Studies reported on different writing skills (transcription: 52%; translation/text generation: 70%) but infrequently reported on associations with language domains (0–7%) and mediational systems (24–43%). Conclusions: Studies have focused predominantly on assessing transcription or translation/text generation skills with little systematic attention to relationships between writing and language domain or mediational systems skills. Reviewed studies offer preliminary findings, areas of needed future research, and implications for continued research into understanding and sup- porting the writing skill development of children with ASD.
1. Introduction
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental difference that affects social communication and social cognition with the presence of repetitive and restrictive behaviors and interests (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Within the burgeoning area of academic-based research involving children with ASD, school-age children with ASD demonstrate heterogeneous academic development profiles (Bauminger-Zviely, 2013, 2014; Estes, Rivera, Bryan, Cali, & Dawson, 2011; Fleury et al., 2014; Keen, Webster,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101471 Received 24 February 2019; Received in revised form 9 October 2019; Accepted 28 October 2019
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.C. Zajic), [email protected] (S.E. Wilson).
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
Available online 11 December 2019 1750-9467/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
& Ridley, 2016; Kim, Paul, Tager-Flusberg, & Lord, 2014; Mundy & Mastergeorge, 2012; Simpson & Myles, 2016). Research focused on content-area development has remained limited and has typically examined reading and mathematics development (e.g., Jones et al., 2009), leaving questions about writing development often overlooked and unanswered (Bauminger-Zviely, 2014; Corbett & Iqbal, 2018; Keen et al., 2016; Zajic & Asaro-Saddler, 2019) despite the importance of writing in other academic areas and across the lifespan (e.g., Graham, 2006, 2018).
A limited number of studies have examined the writing development of children with ASD (e.g., Asaro-Saddler, 2015; Finnegan & Accardo, 2018; Kushki, Chau, & Anagnostou, 2011; Pennington & Delano, 2012). Children with ASD show challenges with hand- writing and graphomotor skills (Kushki et al., 2011) as well as with text generation (Brown, Johnson, Smyth, & Oram Cardy, 2014; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003b, 2008; Myles et al., 2003; Zajic et al., 2018). Intervention research has emphasized multicomponent approaches that draw from evidence-based practices (EBPs) based on recommendations across ASD and writing research (Accardo, Finnegan, Kuder, & Bomgardner, 2019; Asaro-Saddler, 2015, 2016; Pennington & Delano, 2012).
Inquiry into how research has assessed the writing skills of children with ASD has received less systematic attention. The complex, multifaceted nature of writing has been poorly addressed in the available literature with studies having noted infrequent guidance from writing research and theory (i.e., Dockrell, Ricketts, Charman, & Lindsay, 2014; Zajic et al., 2018; Zajic, Dunn, & Berninger, 2019). This study reviews the available empirical literature using a language domains and mediational systems framework (Berninger, 2015) to examine 1) how studies have assessed writing and closely related skills of school-age children with ASD, and 2) if studies have included references to relevant writing research and theory.
1.1. Reviews of academic and writing abilities of children with ASD
Several reviews have synthesized findings related to the writing skills of individuals with ASD. In a review of six studies in children with ASD without a co-occurring intellectual disability, Whitby and Mancil (2009) reported children appeared more at risk for higher-order rather than lower-order academic challenges and that cognitive abilities (i.e., FIQ) predicted academic achievement. Though writing showed similar relationships to FIQ, writing differentiated from other skills with children showing lower-order (handwriting) and higher-order (written expression) challenges. In their review of 19 studies, Keen et al. (2016) reported that children showed variable strengths and weaknesses, and academic performance was positively associated with cognitive abilities and negatively associated with ASD symptom severity. Keen et al. (2016) further acknowledged the positive relationship between FIQ and writing (for written expression but not for spelling) and highlighted writing when discussing uneven patterns of achievement (i.e., children performed better at spelling than writing). However, overall takeaways often did not generalize to writing skills (e.g., no studies examined the relationship between ASD symptom severity and writing skills).
Additional reviews have provided further insights into writing development and writing instruction. In a review of seven handwriting studies, Kushki et al. (2011) reported positive associations between fine motor and handwriting development, noting consistent handwriting challenges in legibility and formation. In a review of 15 intervention studies, Pennington and Delano (2012) emphasized explicit writing instruction in the absence of ASD-specific EBPs. In a review of 11 studies, Asaro-Saddler (2016) found that self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) improved the writing quality of elementary-age students with ASD who struggled with writing. In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, Finnegan and Accardo (2018) reported lower performance in spelling, handwriting (legibility, size, and speed), and composition length and overall structure for individuals with ASD compared to typically developing (TD) peers. In a research synthesis of 24 single-case design studies, Accardo et al. (2019) identified several effective features of instructional writing packages that have been used with children with ASD (i.e., combinations of visual, motivational, choice, technology, behavioral, peer, auditory, and tactile supports).
One issue not captured by prior reviews is the extent to which past research has accounted for the multifaceted nature of writing. Recent studies have highlighted this concern by suggesting researchers have included few references to writing research and theory (i.e., Dockrell et al., 2014; Zajic et al., 2018, 2019). Addressing concerns about how writing skills are studied in children with ASD can benefit future designs across descriptive and intervention studies. However, available reviews have often focused on either descriptive (Finnegan & Accardo, 2018; Keen et al., 2016; Kushki et al., 2011; Whitby & Mancil, 2009) or intervention studies (Accardo et al., 2019; Asaro-Saddler, 2016; Pennington & Delano, 2012). A more comprehensive approach is needed.
1.2. Writing development and associated language domains and mediational systems
Writing is a challenging, complex skill that has existed for over 6000 years (Graham, 2006). Writing contains two core com- ponents: transcription and translation/text generation (Fayol, Alamargot, & Berninger, 2012). Transcription involves transcribing what an individual wants to communicate via written symbols and includes skills like handwriting, keyboarding, and spelling (Graham, 2006). Translation/text generation functions within the mind to transform ideas and cognitive representations into written language (Fayol et al., 2012; Hayes & Berninger, 2014) .
Often overlooked linguistic, cognitive, and social processes that dynamically change throughout the lifespan (Berninger, 2015; Graham, 2018; Hayes & Berninger, 2014) support these writing skills (e.g., Myhill & Fisher, 2010). Linguistic research highlights the challenge of translating ideas into written form to meet different writing tasks by focusing on the influences from additional language skills (Berninger, 2009; Neef, 2012). Sociocultural research posits writing as a learned social technology produced for social cir- cumstances to communicate among people across contexts (Bazerman, 2015). Psychological research focuses on the cognitive pro- cesses required for confronting writing as problem-solving tasks across different contexts (Hayes & Berninger, 2014; Hayes & Flower, 1980; MacArthur & Graham, 2015). Given the processes involved, writing challenges are common for many students. A large body of
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
2
literature has focused on the identification of writing challenges in children with specific learning disabilities (SLDs; Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 2014). Frameworks helpful to understanding the challenges faced by children with SLDs (e.g., Connelly & Dockrell, 2016) may offer approaches to conceptualizing the writing development of children with ASD who often show similar difficulties for different reasons (e.g., Mayes, Breaux, Calhoun, & Frye, 2017; Price, Lacey, Weaver, & Ogletree, 2017; Zajic et al., 2019).
One comprehensive framework for understanding written language development in children with SLDs is a language domain and mediational systems framework (Berninger, 2000, 2009, 2015; Silliman & Berninger, 2011). The language domains include language by hand (writing), language by eye (reading), language by mouth (oral language), and language by ear (listening comprehension). Relationships between language domains begin during early development and adapt as well as influence each other across the school- age years (Berninger, 2000, 2015; Berninger & Abbott, 2010; Berninger & Richards, 2002; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Shanahan, 2006, 2015). Four underlying mediational systems support language domain development: sensorimotor; social, emotional, and motivational (SEM); cognition, and attention/executive functions (Berninger, 2015; James, Jao, & Berninger, 2016; Silliman & Berninger, 2011). The sensorimotor system receives information from the surrounding environments via the ears and eyes and acts upon them via the mouth and hands. The SEM system manages how individuals develop, manage, and experience emotions and motivations along with how they navigate relationships with others across environments. The cognition system focuses on the facilitation of learning via broader mental processes (i.e., intellectual abilities and memory). The attention/executive functions system helps individuals attend to their environments and regulate their actions across contexts via lower- (i.e., supervisory atten- tion) and higher-order (e.g., self-regulation) processes.
1.3. Current study
This study adopts the language domains and mediational systems framework to review available empirical research about the writing development of individuals with ASD. This study examines how descriptive and intervention research studies have assessed writing skills (i.e., transcription and translation/text generation) along with associated language domain (i.e., reading, listening, and oral language) and mediational system skills (i.e., sensorimotor, SEM, cognition, and attention/executive functions). In addition to assessing for general study quality, this study created quality indicators for quantifying how studies have referred to writing research and theory.
2. Method
2.1. Selection of studies and inclusion criteria
Best practices for surveying the literature were followed to allow for a comprehensive search (Cooper, 2016). Record identifi- cation and screening were completed in line with the systematic process outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009; see Fig. 1). Authors conducted an electronic search of four large journal databases (Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and PubMed) using Boolean search terms—(autism* OR asperg*) AND (handwrit* OR spell* OR writ*)—within the title, abstract, and keyword search fields. Manual searches were conducted via reference lists of previously mentioned reviews and meta-analyses. Comprehensive searching was completed in February 2019.
Titles, abstracts, and full texts were assessed for inclusion based on criteria found in Fig. 1. Criteria c (included at least one dependent writing skill measure assessed in English) and g (included at least one participant without a co-occurring intellectual disability or severe communication difficulty [ID/SCD]) were included to narrow assessment and participant heterogeneity. As different language systems rely on different orthographies (e.g., Berninger, 1994), this review included studies that used English- based writing assessments (as accounting for different language systems fell beyond the scope of this review). As the cognitive and communicative profiles of children with ASD are heterogeneous (e.g., Kim et al., 2014; Klinger, Mussey, & O’Kelley, 2018) and can impact decisions made about academic programming and instruction (e.g., Pennington & Carpenter, 2019; Simpson & Myles, 2016), this review focused on participants who did not demonstrate a co-occurring ID/SCD. However, excluding studies based on these criteria can bias reported findings, and considerations are offered in the limitations section.
2.2. Study quality and characteristics
All studies were assessed for study quality and inclusion of writing research or theory (Table 1). Quality indicators for descriptive studies were adapted from Finnegan and Accardo (2018) and for intervention studies were adapted from Accardo et al. (2019). One intervention study was coded using descriptive rather than intervention quality indicators due to not using a single-case study research design. Categories for inclusion of writing research and inclusion of writing theory were created to examine if studies referenced either broader writing research findings (i.e., not involving children with ASD) or theoretical writing frameworks. Studies were coded for inclusion of either (i.e., at least one reference) in the introduction and discussion sections. Authors independently coded studies for all quality indicators and discussed disagreements until consensus.
Authors extracted additional data about study characteristics and skill assessment, including research design, journal titles and research areas, ASD group demographics, included comparison group(s), and ASD symptom severity and IQ assessment information. See Tables 2 and 3 for study characteristic information and study quality summaries.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
3
2.3. Language domains and mediational systems framework
Studies were categorized based on inclusion of written language outcomes for transcription skills (i.e., spelling and/or hand- writing) and translation/text generation skills (i.e., written expression). If transcription was assessed during a translation/text generation task (e.g., spelling performance assessed during a timed, genre-based writing task), then the study was coded as
Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) flowchart for record identification, screening, and eligibility assessment.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
4
T ab
le 1
Q ua lit y in di ca to rs fo r st ud y qu al it y an d in cl us io n of
w ri ti ng
th eo ry
an d re se ar ch .
D es cr ip ti ve
St ud y Q ua lit y In di ca to rs 1
In te rv en ti on
St ud y Q ua lit y In di ca to rs 2 ,3
W ri ti ng
Th eo ry
an d R es ea rc h Q ua lit y In di ca to rs
In di ca to r
D es cr ip ti on
(S co re )
In di ca to r
D es cr ip ti on
(S co re )
In di ca to r
D es cr ip ti on
(S co re )
C om
pa ra bl e gr ou ps
- G ro up s w er e sa m e si ze ,a nd /o r m ea su re s w er e
ta ke n to
en su re
gr ou ps
w er e co m pa ra bl e (1 ).
R el ia bi lit y of
m ea su re s
- R el ia bi lit y re po rt in g gr ea te r th an
0. 80
re po rt ed
fo r so m e m ea su re s (0 .5 ).
- R el ia bi lit y re po rt in g gr ea te r th an
0. 80
fo r al l
m ea su re s (1 ).
W ri ti ng
th eo ry
(I nt ro du ct io n)
- In cl ud ed
at le as t on e ci ta ti on
in th e
in tr od uc ti on
to a th eo re ti ca l w ri ti ng
fr am
ew or k (1 ).
A ge
- Th
e m ea n ag e of
th e pa rt ic ip an ts in
th e
co m pa ri so n gr ou ps
w as
no t si gn ifi ca nt ly
di ff er en t (1 ).
Fi de lit y of tr ea tm
en t
- D at a w er e pr ov id ed
ev id en ci ng
th e tr ea tm
en t
w as
ad m in is te re d as
in te nd ed
w it h in te gr it y
(h ig he r th an
0. 80
fi de lit y re po rt in g)
(1 ).
W ri ti ng
re se ar ch
(I nt ro du ct io n)
- In cl ud ed
at le as t on e ci ta ti on
in th e
in tr od uc ti on
to re se ar ch
on w ri ti ng
de ve lo pm
en t in
ch ild
re n w it ho ut
A SD
(1 ).
El ig ib ili ty
- D ia gn os ti c in fo rm
at io n w as
us ed
to de te rm
in e
if pa rt ic ip an ts m et
cr it er ia fo r st ud y in cl us io n
(1 ).
Fu nc ti on al re la ti on
- D es ig n ha d po te nt ia l to
de m on st ra te
ex pe ri m en ta l co nt ro l (1 ).
W ri ti ng
th eo ry
(D is cu ss io n)
- In cl ud ed
at le as t on e ci ta ti on
in th e
di sc us si on
to a th eo re ti ca l w ri ti ng
fr am
ew or k (1 ).
Tr ea tm
en t fi de lit y
- Pa rt ic ip an ts ac ro ss gr ou ps
w er e tr ea te d
co ns is te nt ly
an d te st ed
in si m ila r se tt in gs
(1 ).
B as el in e st ab ili ty
- Pr ov id ed
ev id en ce
of a st ab le pa tt er n w it h
th re e da ta
po in ts (0 .5 ).
- Pr ov id ed
ev id en ce
of a st ab le pa tt er n w it h
fi ve
or m or e da ta
po in ts (1 ).
W ri ti ng
re se ar ch
(D is cu ss io n)
- In cl ud ed
at le as t on e ci ta ti on
in th e
di sc us si on
to re se ar ch
on w ri ti ng
de ve lo pm
en t in
ch ild
re n w it ho ut
A SD
(1 ).
R an do m
se le ct io n
- Pa rt ic ip an ts w er e ra nd om
ly se le ct ed
fr om
a la rg er
re pr es en ta ti ve
gr ou p (1 ).
C ei lin
g eff ec t
- N o ce ili ng
eff ec ts pr es en t du ri ng
ba se lin
e or
in te rv en ti on
(1 ).
Te st er s
- St ud y in di ca te s w he th er
te st er s w er e qu al ifi ed
an d/ or
tr ai ne d (1 ).
M ai nt en an ce
- St ud y in cl ud ed
as se ss m en t of
m ai nt en an ce
of th e in te rv en ti on
(1 ).
N um
be rs
- Pa rt ic ip an ts in
gr ou ps
re ce iv ed
a co m pa ra bl e
nu m be r of
te st s (1 ).
Tr ai ni ng
of in te rv en ti on is t
- In te rv en ti on is t re ce iv ed
pr of es si on al
de ve lo pm
en t or
w as
a kn ow
n ex pe rt (1 ).
M ea su re s
- St ud y ca n be
re pl ic at ed
w it h sa m e ou tc om
e m ea su re s (1 ).
Fl oo r eff ec t
- N o fl oo r eff ec ts pr es en t du ri ng
ba se lin
e or
in te rv en ti on
(1 ).
R el ia bi lit y
- St an da rd iz ed
te st s w er e us ed
or in te rr at er
re lia bi lit y w as
re po rt ed
(1 ).
So ci al va lid
it y
- St ud y in cl ud ed
as se ss m en t of
so ci al va lid
it y
of th e in te rv en ti on
(1 ).
V al id it y
- Ev id en ce
pr ov id ed
th at
m ea su re s w er e va lid
(1 ).
G en er al iz at io n
- St ud y in cl ud ed
as se ss m en t of
ge ne ra liz at io n
of th e in te rv en ti on
(1 ).
Te ch ni qu es
- A na ly si s lin
ke d to
re se ar ch
qu es ti on s (1 ).
R el at io ns hi p
be tw ee n
va ri ab le s
- In te ra ct io n eff ec ts an d/ or
co rr el at io n sc or es
w er e re po rt ed
to in di ca te w he th er
or no t th er e
w er e re la ti on sh ip s be tw ee n th e va ri ab le s (1 ).
D at a re po rt in g
- A de qu at e da ta
re po rt ed ,i nc lu di ng
ge nd er
an d
ag e of
pa rt ic ip an ts (1 ).
D ir ec ti on al it y
- D ir ec ti on
of ou tc om
e m ea su re s gi ve n,
if ap pl ic ab le (1 ).
Po w er
an al ys is
- Po w er an al ys is co nd uc te d to de te rm
in e sa m pl e
si ze
(o r m en ti on
of sa m pl e si ze
as lim
it at io n)
(1 ).
1 A da pt ed
fr om
Fi nn eg an
an d A cc ar do
(2 01 8) .
2 A da pt ed
fr om
A cc ar do
et al . (2 01 9) .
3 O ne
in te rv en ti on
st ud y (A sa ro -S ad dl er et al ., 20 15 ) di d no tu se a si ng le -c as e de si gn
ap pr oa ch .Q
ua lit y w as as se ss ed
us in g de sc ri pt iv e st ud y qu al it y in di ca to rs in st ea d of in te rv en ti on
qu al it y in di ca to rs ,
as th os e in di ca to rs w er e or ig in al ly
de ve lo pe d ba se d on
ex pe ri m en ta l an d qu as i- ex pe ri m en ta l re se ar ch
de si gn s (s ee
Fi nn eg an
& A cc ar do , 20 18 ).
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
5
T ab
le 2
D es cr ip ti ve
st ud y ch ar ac te ri st ic s an d qu al it y in di ca to rs .
St ud y
Jo ur na l A re a
A SD
G ro up
C om
pa ri so n G ro up (s )
D ir ec tl y A ss es se d
A SD
? A ss es se d/ R ep or te d
IQ /A
bi lit y?
St ud y
Q ua lit y9
W ri ti ng
Th eo ry
(I , D )
W ri ti ng
R es ea rc h
(I , D )
A la ni z et
al . (2 01 5)
O cc up at io na l Th
er ap y
n =
27 (2 1M
/6 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
4- 10
TD –
– 14
(9 3%
) 0,
0 1,
1
A sh bu rn er
et al . (2 01 2)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
22 (2 1M
/1 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 13
– –
– 81
0 (7 3%
) 0,
0 1,
0
A ss ou lin
e et
al . (2 01 2)
A ut is m
n =
35 (5 0M
/9 F1 ), ag e
ra ng e =
5- 17
– A D I- R , A D O S
W A IS -I II , W IS C -I V
10 1 0 (9 1%
) 0,
0 0,
1
B ro w n et
al . (2 01 4)
A ut is m
n =
25 (2 2M
/3 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 17
TD SR
S W A SI
13 (8 7%
) 1,
1 1,
1
C ar tm
ill et
al . (2 00 9)
O cc up at io na l Th
er ap y
n =
28 (2 4M
/4 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 8
TD G A D S, G A R S
K B IT
14 (9 3%
) 1,
1 1,
1
D ill on
an d U nd er w oo d (2 01 2)
H um
an -C om
pu te r St ud ie s
n =
10 (9 M /1
F) , ag e
ra ng e =
6- 12
TD –
TR O G 8
12 (8 0%
) 1,
0 0,
0
D ir lik ov
et al . (2 01 7)
O cc up at io na l Th
er ap y
n =
57 (4 9M
/8 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
7- 12
A D H D , TD
A D I- R , A D O S- G ,
SR S
W IS C -I V , W IS C -V
13 (8 7%
) 0,
0 1,
0
D oc kr el l et
al . (2 01 4)
Ps yc ho lo gy
n =
64 (5 7M
/7 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
6- 12
SL I
SR S
B A S- II
14 (9 3%
) 1,
1 1,
1
Es te s et
al . (2 01 1)
A ut is m
n =
30 (2 5M
/5 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
9- 9
– A D I- R , A D O S- G
D A S
91 0 (8 2%
) 0,
0 0,
0
Fo le y- N ic po n et
al . (2 01 2)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
52 (4 5M
/7 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
6- 16
– A D I- R , A D O S- G
W IS C -I V
10 1 0 (9 1%
) 0,
0 0,
0
Fu en te s et
al . (2 00 9)
N eu ro lo gy
n =
14 (1 1M
/3 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 13
TD A D O S- G , A D I- R
W IS C -I V
12 (8 0%
) 0,
0 0,
0
Fu en te s et
al . (2 01 0)
N eu ro lo gy
n =
12 (1 1M
/1 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
12 -1 6
TD A D O S- G , A D I- R
W A SI , W IS C -I V
12 (8 0%
) 0,
0 0,
0
G ra ce , En ti co tt et
al . (2 01 7)
A ut is m
n =
23 (2 3M
/0 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 12
TD SR
S- 2
W A SI -I I, W IS C -I V
15 (1 00 % )
0, 0
1, 1
G ra ce
et al . (2 01 8)
Ps yc ho lo gy
n =
23 (2 3M
/0 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 12
TD SR
S- 2
W A SI -I I, W IS C -I V
14 (9 3%
) 0,
0 1,
1
G ra ce , R in eh ar t et
al . (2 01 7)
A ut is m
n =
23 (2 3M
/0 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 12
TD SR
S- 2
W A SI -I I, W IS C -I V
15 (1 00 % )
0, 0
0, 1
G ri sw
ol d et
al . (2 00 2)
A ut is m
n =
20 (1 8M
/2 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
6- 16
– –
W IS C -R
91 0 (8 2%
) 0,
0 0,
0
H en de rs on
an d G re en
(2 00 1)
La ng ua ge
n =
2 (1 M /1 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
9- 13
– –
B A S, W IS C -I II -R
41 0 (3 6%
) 0,
0 0,
0
Jo hn so n,
Pa pa do po ul os
et al .
(2 01 3)
A ut is m
n =
14 (1 4M
/0 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
7- 14
A D H D , TD
SR S, D B C -P
W A SI , W IS C -I V
14 (9 3%
) 0,
0 0,
0
Jo hn so n et
al . (2 01 5)
A ut is m
n =
26 (2 6M
/0 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 13
TD SR
S, D B C -P
W A SI , W IS C -I V
13 (8 7%
) 0,
1 0,
1
Jo hn so n,
Ph ill ip s et
al . (2 01 3)
D ev el op m en ta l
D is ab ili ti es
n =
26 (2 6M
/0 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
8- 13
TD SR
S, D B C -P
W A SI , W IS C -I V
12 (8 0%
) 0,
0 0,
0
K im
et al . (2 01 8)
Ps yc ho lo gy
n =
47 (M
/F 2 ), ag e
ra ng e =
9- 18
– A D O S
D A S, W A SI , W IS C -
II I
10 1 0 (9 1%
) 0,
0 0,
0
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 3a )
A ut is m
n =
78 (M
/F 3 ), ag e
ra ng e =
6- 15
– –
W IS C -I II
91 0 (8 2%
) 0,
0 0,
1
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 3b )
A ut is m
n =
78 (M
/F 4 ), ag e
ra ng e =
6- 15
– –
W IS C -I II
81 0 (7 3%
) 0,
0 0,
1
(c on tin
ue d on
ne xt
pa ge )
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
6
T ab
le 2 (c on tin
ue d)
St ud y
Jo ur na l A re a
A SD
G ro up
C om
pa ri so n G ro up (s )
D ir ec tl y A ss es se d
A SD
? A ss es se d/ R ep or te d
IQ /A
bi lit y?
St ud y
Q ua lit y9
W ri ti ng
Th eo ry
(I , D )
W ri ti ng
R es ea rc h
(I , D )
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 6)
Ps yc ho lo gy
n =
87 (M
/F 5 ), ag e
ra ng e =
6- 16
A D H D -C , A D H D + , A D D -I ,
A D D + , B D , B I, A /D
, SB , B eD
– W IS C -I II
10 (6 7%
) 0,
0 1,
1
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 7)
N eu ro ps yc ho lo gy
n =
11 8 (M
/F 6 ), ag e
ra ng e =
8- 16
TD , A D H D , A /D
, O D D
– W IS C -I II , W IS C -I V
11 (7 3%
) 0,
0 0,
1
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 8)
A ut is m
n =
54 (4 8M
/6 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
6- 14
– C A Y C
W IS C -I V
91 0 (8 2%
) 0,
0 0,
1
M yl es
et al . (2 00 3)
D ev el op m en ta l
D is ab ili ti es
n =
16 (1 5M
/1 F) , ag e
ra ng e =
9- 11
TD –
W IS C -I II
13 (8 7%
) 0,
0 0,
0
Tr oy b et
al . (2 01 4)
A ut is m
n =
30 (3 7M
/4 F7 ), ag e
ra ng e =
8- 21
TD , O O
A D O S, SC Q
W A SI
13 (8 7%
) 0,
0 0,
0
Za jic
et al . (2 01 8)
A ut is m
n =
77 (6 3M
/1 4F ), ag e
ra ng e =
8- 16
A D H D , TD
A D O S, A SS Q ,
SC Q , SR
S W A SI -I I
14 (9 3%
) 1,
1 1,
1
N ot e. A /D
= an xi et y/ de pr es si on ; A D D +
= at te nt io n- de fi ci t di so rd er
(A D H D in at te nt iv e pl us
a co m or bi d di ag no si s) ; A D D -I =
at te nt io n- de fi ci t di so rd er
(A D H D in at te nt iv e) ; A D H D =
at te nt io n- de fi ci t/
hy pe ra ct iv it y
di so rd er ; A D H D +
= at te nt io n- de fi ci t/ hy pe ra ct iv it y
di so rd er
(p lu s a
co m or bi d
di ag no si s) ; A D H D -C =
at te nt io n- de fi ci t/ hy pe ra ct iv it y
di so rd er
(c om
bi ne d) ; B D =
bi po la r di so rd er ;
B eD
= be ha vi or
di so rd er ; B I=
br ai n in ju ry ; O D D =
op po si ti on al
de fi an t di so rd er ; O O =
op ti m al
ou tc om
es ; SB
= sp in a bi fi da ; SL I=
sp ec ifi c la ng ua ge
im pa ir m en t; TD
= ty pi ca lly
de ve lo pi ng ; A D I-
R =
A ut is m
D ia gn os ti c In te rv ie w -R ev is ed ; A D O S =
A ut is m
D ia gn os ti c O bs er va ti on
Sc he du le ; A D O S- G =
A ut is m
D ia gn os ti c O bs er va ti on
Sc he du le -G en er ic ; A SS Q =
A ut is m
Sp ec tr um
Sc re en in g
Q ue st io nn ai re ; B A S =
B ri ti sh
A bi lit y Sc al es ; C A Y C =
C og ni ti ve
A ss es sm
en t of
Y ou ng
C hi ld re n;
D A S =
D iff er en ti al
A bi lit y Sc al es ; D B C -P =
D ev el op m en ta l B eh av io r C he ck lis t- Pa re nt /P ri m ar y C ar er ;
G A D S =
G ill ia m
A sp er ge r's
D is or de r Sc al e;
G A R S =
G ill ia m
A ut is m
R at in g Sc al e;
K B IT =
K au fm
an B ri ef
In te lli ge nc e Te st ; SC Q =
So ci al
C om
m un ic at io n Q ue st io nn ai re ; SR
S =
So ci al
R es po ns iv en es s
Sc al e; TR
O G =
Te st fo r R ec ep ti on
of G ra m m ar ; W A IS =
W ec hs le r A du lt In te lli ge nc e Sc al e; W A SI =
W ec hs le r A bb re vi at ed
Sc al e of
In te lli ge nc e; W IS C =
W ec hs le r In te lli ge nc e Sc al e fo r C hi ld re n.
1 M /F
ra ti o no t re po rt ed
fo r on ly
pa rt ic ip an ts w ho
co m pl et ed
th e w ri ti ng
as se ss m en ts (8 5%
m al e in
ov er al l sa m pl e) .
2 M /F
ra ti o no t re po rt ed
fo r on ly
pa rt ic ip an ts w it ho ut
a co -o cc ur ri ng
in te lle ct ua l di sa bi lit y (8 9%
m al e in
ov er al l sa m pl e) .
3 M /F
ra ti o no t re po rt ed
fo r on ly
pa rt ic ip an ts w ho
co m pl et ed
th e w ri ti ng
as se ss m en ts (7 8%
m al e in
ov er al l sa m pl e) .
4 M /F
ra ti o no t re po rt ed
fo r on ly
pa rt ic ip an ts w ho
co m pl et ed
th e w ri ti ng
as se ss m en ts (7 9%
m al e in
ov er al l sa m pl e) .
5 M /F
ra ti o no t re po rt ed
by di ag no st ic gr ou p (7 3%
m al e in
ov er al l sa m pl e) .
6 M /F
ra ti o no t re po rt ed
by di ag no st ic gr ou p (7 5%
m al e in
ov er al l sa m pl e) .
7 M /F
ra ti o no t re po rt ed
fo r on ly
pa rt ic ip an ts w ho
co m pl et ed
th e w ri ti ng
as se ss m en ts (9 0%
m al e in
ov er al l sa m pl e) .
8 TR
O G re po rt ed
as a m ea su re
of ve rb al m en ta l ag e.
9 St ud y qu al it y su m m ed
to ta l sc or es
ar e pr es en te d.
St ud y- sp ec ifi c qu al it y in fo rm
at io n is av ai la bl e fr om
th e fi rs t au th or
up on
re qu es t.
1 0 St ud y di d no t in cl ud e a co m pa ri so n gr ou p an d w as
sc or ed
us in g 11
qu al it y in di ca to rs th at
di d no t re qu ir e gr ou p co m pa ri so ns .
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
7
T ab
le 3
In te rv en ti on
st ud y ch ar ac te ri st ic s an d qu al it y in di ca to rs .
St ud y
Jo ur na l A re a
A SD
G ro up
D ir ec tl y A ss es se d
A SD
? A ss es se d/ R ep or te d IQ /
A bi lit y?
St ud y Q ua lit y3
W ri ti ng
Th eo ry
(I , D )
W ri ti ng
R es ea rc h
(I , D )
A sa ro
an d Sa dd le r (2 00 9)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
1 (1 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
10 -1 0
A SD
S A B A S
3 (3 0%
) 0,
0 1,
0 A sa ro -S ad dl er
(2 01 4)
A ut is m
n =
3 (3 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
7- 8
– –
6. 5 (6 5%
) 0,
0 1,
0 A sa ro -S ad dl er
an d B ak
(2 01 2)
La ng ua ge
n =
3 (2 M /1 F) , ag e ra ng e =
8- 9
– –
6. 5 (6 5%
) 0,
0 1,
0 A sa ro -S ad dl er
an d B ak
(2 01 4)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
6 (5 M /1 F) , ag e ra ng e =
8- 10
– D A S; K B IT , W IS C -I V
5 (5 0%
) 0,
0 1,
1 A sa ro -S ad dl er
an d Sa dd le r (2 01 0)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
3 (3 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
6- 9
– K A B C -I I, W IS C -I V
9 (9 0%
) 0,
0 1,
0 A sa ro -S ad dl er
et al . (2 01 5)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
8 (6 M /4 F) , ag e ra ng e =
16 -1 6
– –
8 (7 3%
)2 0,
1 0,
1 B is ho p et
al . (2 01 5)
A ut is m
n =
3 (3 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
12 -1 4
– –
7. 5 (7 5%
) 0,
0 1,
0 C ra m er
an d M as on
(2 01 4)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
1 (1 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
12 -1 3
– W IS C -I V
6. 5 (6 5%
) 0,
0 1,
1 D el an o (2 00 7a )
A ut is m
n =
1 (1 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
12 -1 2
A SD
S –
7. 5 (7 5%
) 0,
0 0,
0 D el an o (2 00 7b )
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
3 (3 M /0
F) , ag e ra ng e =
13 -1 7
A SD
S –
6. 5 (6 5%
) 0,
0 0,
0 Ev m en ov a et
al . (2 01 6)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
4 (4 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
12 -1 3
– 1
8 (8 0%
) 0,
0 1,
1 H au th
et al . (2 01 3)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
2 (2 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
14 -1 4
– W IS C -I V
9 (9 0%
) 0,
0 1,
0 M as on
et al . (2 01 0)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
1 (1 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
14 -1 4
– –
7. 5 (7 5%
) 0,
0 1,
1 M ou rg ka si an d M av ro po ul ou
(2 01 8)
Sp ec ia l Ed uc at io n
n =
3 (3 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
8- 16
– C PM
9 (9 0%
) 0,
0 0,
0 Pr ic e et
al . (2 01 7)
La ng ua ge
n =
1 (1 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
8- 8
– –
7. 5 (7 5%
) 1,
1 1,
1 R ou ss ea u et
al . (1 99 4)
D ev el op m en ta l D is ab ili ti es
n =
1 (0 M /1 F) , ag e ra ng e =
13 -1 3
– W IS C -R
8 (8 0%
) 0,
0 1,
0 Sc hn ei de r et
al . (2 01 3)
A ut is m
n =
4 (4 M /0 F) , ag e ra ng e =
9- 12
– –
9 (9 0%
) 0,
0 1,
1
N ot e. A SD
= au ti sm
sp ec tr um
di so rd er ; A B A S =
A da pt iv e B eh av io r A ss es sm
en t Sy st em
; A SD
S =
A sp er ge r Sy nd ro m e D ia gn os ti c Sc al e; C PM
= R av en 's C ol or ed
Pr og re ss iv e M at ri ce s; D A S =
D iff er en ti al
A bi lit y Sc al es ; K A B C =
K au fm
an A ss es sm
en t B at te ry
fo r C hi ld re n;
K B IT =
K au fm
an B ri ef
In te lli ge nc e Te st ; W IS C =
W ec hs le r In te lli ge nc e Sc al e fo r C hi ld re n.
1 R ep or te d IQ
bu t di d no t sp ec if y th e as se ss m en t.
2 R at ed
us in g de sc ri pt iv e ra th er
th an
in te rv en ti on
qu al it y in di ca to rs du e to
no t be in g a si ng le -c as e de si gn
st ud y.
3 St ud y qu al it y su m m ed
to ta l sc or es
ar e pr es en te d.
St ud y- sp ec ifi c qu al it y in fo rm
at io n is av ai la bl e fr om
th e fi rs t au th or
up on
re qu es t.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
8
translation/text generation. Studies were then coded for inclusion of other language domain (oral language, listening comprehension, and reading) and mediational systems skills (sensorimotor, SEM, cognition, and attention/executive functions). Studies were en- dorsed if skills were reported in association with written language skills. For example, to be endorsed for oral language, a study needed to have reported an association between oral language and written language skills. If a study reported skills independently, the study was not endorsed.
Both authors coded all studies independently for specific language domain and mediational systems skills. Prior to coding, authors familiarized themselves with the framework components (e.g., Berninger, 2015; Silliman & Berninger, 2011) and completed in- dependent practice of applying the coding system to a subset of excluded studies (n = 10). Both authors discussed all agreements to ensure similar conceptual support and reached consensus on all disagreements by referencing the literature. Following training, authors independently coded all studies, and all agreements and disagreements were assessed for conceptual similarity and discussed until consensus was reached, respectively.
3. Results
The initial search identified 1,951 records with an additional seven records identified from prior reviews. Removal of duplicates across databases resulted in 1,393 records. Screening abstracts and titles for exclusion criteria resulted in 73 eligible full-text articles. Authors independently reviewed article full texts and excluded 27 based on exclusion criteria (see Fig. 1). This resulted in retaining 46 articles for comprehensive review.
Included studies were published between 1994 and 2018 (with all but one study published after 2000) and included more descriptive studies (n = 29; Table 2) than intervention studies (n = 17; Table 3). Studies included 1,166 participants (M = 25.35, SD = 28.00, Mdn = 18, Range = 117) and were published predominantly in ASD (n = 17, 37%) and special education (n = 12, 26%) research journals. Participant age ranges varied; 63% of studies (n = 29) reported an age range ≥4 years. All studies ruled out eligibility using a documented diagnosis, and most reported a higher percentage of male participants (Mmale participants % = 89%), included at least one comparison group (n = 18, 41%), directly assessed ASD symptom severity (n = 22, 47%), and reported and/or directly assessed cognitive abilities (n = 35, 74%).
Descriptive and intervention studies included the same elevated percentages of male participants (Mmale participants % =89%) but differed on other study characteristics. Descriptive studies contained 96% of participants (n = 1,118, M = 38.55, SD = 27.74, Mdn = 27, Range = 116), while intervention studies contained the remaining 4% (n = 48, M = 2.82, SD = 1.94, Mdn = 3, Range = 7). Descriptive studies were published predominantly in ASD research journals (n = 13, 45%), while intervention studies were published predominantly in special education research journals (n = 10, 59%). All but three descriptive studies (90%) reported an age range of ≥4 years, while only two intervention studies (12%) reported similar age ranges. A majority of descriptive studies directly assessed ASD symptom severity (n = 19, 66%) and reported and/or directly assessed cognitive abilities (n = 27, 93%). Relatively fewer intervention studies assessed ASD symptom severity (n = 3, 18%) and reported and/or assessed cognitive abilities (n = 8, 47%).
3.1. Study quality and inclusion of writing research and theory
Quality indicators varied across studies (Tables 2 and 3). All descriptive studies met criteria for diagnostic eligibility, treatment fidelity, numbers, and measures. Most met criteria for validity, techniques, data reporting, and directionality (97%); age (95%); reliability (93%); comparable groups (89%); and testers (83%). Far fewer met criteria for relationships (59%), power analysis (41%, with many referencing sample size limitations rather than conducting a power analysis), and random selection (38%). All inter- vention studies met at least partial criteria for reliability (100%), though fewer met full criteria (69%). Most intervention studies met criteria for functional relation and intervention training (94%) as well as treatment fidelity and baseline stability (88%). Fewer studies met criteria for ceiling effects (75%), floor effects (69%), maintenance (63%), and social validity (56%). Relatively few studies met criteria for generalization (38%).
Many studies referenced writing theory or research at least once (70%), but few studies referenced theory and research (13%). Intervention studies more often referenced either at least once (descriptive: 62%; intervention: 82%), but descriptive studies more often referenced both (descriptive: 17%; intervention: 6%). Studies generally referenced research (67%) more often than theory (15%). Intervention studies referenced research more often than descriptive studies (82% and 59%, respectively), but descriptive studies referenced theory more often than intervention studies (21% and 6%, respectively). Substantially more studies referenced research either in the introduction (52%) or discussion section (48%) relative to theory (13% each). This trend followed in both groups of studies: descriptive studies referenced theory less often in the introduction and discussion (17% each) compared to research (34% and 52%, respectively); intervention studies referenced theory less often in the introduction and discussion (6% each) com- pared to research (82% and 41%, respectively).
3.2. Language domains and mediational systems framework
For writing skills, 24 studies (52%) reported transcription skills, 32 studies (70%) reported translation skills, and 10 (22%) reported both. Few studies reported on the associations between writing and other language domain skills: three studies (7%) reported oral language skills, zero (0%) reported listening comprehension skills, and one (2%) reported reading skills. Relatively more studies reported on the associations between writing and mediational system skills: 11 (24%) reported sensorimotor skills, 12
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
9
T ab
le 4
Sk ill s as se ss ed
ac ro ss de sc ri pt iv e st ud ie s ca te go ri ze d by
th e la ng ua ge
do m ai ns
an d m ed ia ti on al sy st em
s fr am
ew or k.
St ud y
Tr an sc ri pt io n
Tr an sl at io n/ Te xt
G en er at io n
O L
LC R
Se ns or im
ot or
SE M
C og ni ti on
A /E F
A la ni z et
al . (2 01 5)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
le gi bi lit y [E TC
H ]
– –
– –
- Pe nc il co nt ro l
[V M I]
- G ri p an d pi nc h
st re ng th
[S am
m on s
Pr es to n Ja m ar
ha nd
dy na m om
et er
an d pi nc h m et er ]
– –
–
A sh bu rn er
et al .
(2 01 2)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
sp ee d
te st
- K ey bo ar di ng
sp ee d
te st
- H an dw
ri ti ng
le gi bi lit y [T O LH
]
- W or d co un t, lo ca l
or ga ni za ti on
an d
st ru ct ur in g of
id ea s,
sp el lin
g an d
gr am
m ar ,
vo ca bu la ry , an d
pu nc tu at io n
as se ss ed
fr om
tw o
st or ie s (o ne
ha nd w ri tt en , on e
ty pe d)
w it h
pi ct or ia l pr om
pt s
– –
– –
- Te ac he r, pa re nt , an d
pa rt ic ip an t se lf -
re po rt on
pe rc ep ti on s of
m ot iv at io n,
ab ili ty ,
an d pr ef er en ce
fo r
ke yb oa rd in g an d
ha nd w ri ti ng
– –
A ss ou lin
e et
al .
(2 01 2)
– - B ro ad
w ri tt en
la ng ua ge
[W J- II I]
– –
– - Pe nc il co nt ro l
[V M I]
- Pr oc es si ng
sp ee d
in de x [W
IS C ]
– - V er ba l
co m pr eh en si on
in de x, pe rc ep tu al
re as on in g in de x,
an d w or ki ng
m em
or y in de x
[W A IS -I II ; W IS C -I V ]
–
B ro w n et
al . (2 01 4)
– - Lo w er -o rd er
(p ro du ct iv it y,
sy nt ac ti c
co m pl ex it y, le xi ca l
di ve rs it y,
co he si ve ne ss , an d
w ri ti ng
co nv en ti on s) an d
hi gh er -o rd er
sk ill s
(c oh er en ce ,
ba ck gr ou nd
in fo rm
at io n,
or ga ni za ti on
an d
st ru ct ur e, an d to ne )
as se ss ed
fr om
a pe rs ua si ve
w ri ti ng
sa m pl e
- Sp ok en
la ng ua ge
co m po si te
[T O LD
-I :4 ]
– –
– - Pa re nt -r ep or te d
so ci al
co m m un ic at io n
[S R S]
- Th
eo ry
of m in d
[S A T]
- G lo ba l in te gr at iv e
ta sk
[I PA
A ]
- Pe rf or m an ce
IQ [W
A SI ]
–
(c on tin
ue d on
ne xt
pa ge )
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
10
T ab
le 4 (c on tin
ue d)
St ud y
Tr an sc ri pt io n
Tr an sl at io n/ Te xt
G en er at io n
O L
LC R
Se ns or im
ot or
SE M
C og ni ti on
A /E F
C ar tm
ill et
al .
(2 00 9)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
sp ee d
[H PT
] - H an dw
ri ti ng
le gi bi lit y [T O LH
] - C on si st en cy
of le tt er
fo rm
at io n
[T IP -P S]
- C on si st en cy
of si ze
[T IP -R S]
- A cc ur at e le tt er
fo rm
at io n
[A lp ha be t to
D ic ta ti on
te st ]
– - O ra l sp el lin
g [W
R A T3
] - Le tt er
re co gn it io n
te st
– - Se m an ti c
w or d
re co gn it io n
[P PV
T- II I]
- Ph
on em
ic re co gn it io n
[T B PK
]
- K in es th es ia
[S C SI T]
- V is ua l pe rc ep tu al
sk ill s [T V PS -R ]
– - V is ua l m em
or y an d
vi su al se qu en ti al
m em
or y [T V PS -R ]
- V er ba l m em
or y
in de x [W
R A M L]
–
D ill on
an d
U nd er w oo d
(2 01 2) .
– - Le ng th
of na rr at iv e,
na rr at iv e
co he re nc e, an d
el ab or at io n as se ss ed
fr om
co -
co ns tr uc te d, bu bb le -
ba se d di al og ue
st or y
– –
– –
- B ub bl e us e,
in ap pr op ri at e bu bb le
us e, an d m en ta ls ta te
te rm
s
– –
D ir lik ov
et al .
(2 01 7)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
fo rm
an d sp ac in g of
a no ns en se
se nt en ce
in th re e co nd it io ns
(c op y, tr ac e, an d
fa st -t ra ce ) [M
H A ]
– –
– –
- M ot or
pr ofi
ci en cy
[P A N ES S]
- Pa re nt -r ep or te d
so ci al
co m m un ic at io n
[S R S]
- W or ki ng
m em
or y
in de x [W
IS C -I V ]
- To ta l sc or e an d
hy pe ra ct iv e-
im pu ls iv e
su bs co re
[A D H D -
R S]
D oc kr el l et
al .
(2 01 4)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
[D A SH
] - Sp el lin
g [B A S- II ]
- Pr od uc ti vi ty ,
ac cu ra cy , an d
w ri ti ng
qu al it y
[m od el ed
af te r th e
W IA T]
- R ec ep ti ve
vo ca bu la ry
[B PV
S- II I]
- R ec ep ti ve
gr am
m ar
[T R O G -E ]
- Fo rm
ul at ed
se nt en ce s
[C EL F- 4 U K ]
– –
– - Te ac he r- re po rt ed
so ci al
co m m un ic at io n
[S R S]
- N on ve rb al ab ili ty
[B A S- II ]
- V er ba l an d vi su al
w or ki ng
m em
or y
[A W M A ]
–
Es te s et
al . (2 01 1)
- Sp el lin
g [D A S]
– –
– –
– - Te ac he r- re po rt ed
so ci al
co m m un ic at io n
[S SR
S]
- G en er al co nc ep tu al
ab ili ty
[D A S]
- C ar eg iv er -
re po rt ed
pr ob le m
be ha vi or
(i rr it ab ili ty
an d
hy pe ra ct iv it y)
[A B C ]
Fo le y- N ic po n et
al .
(2 01 2)
- Sp el lin
g [W
J- II I]
- W ri ti ng
fl ue nc y
[W J- II I]
- W ri ti ng
sa m pl es
[W J- II I]
- B ro ad
w ri tt en
la ng ua ge
[W J- II I]
– –
– –
– –
–
(c on tin
ue d on
ne xt
pa ge )
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
11
T ab
le 4 (c on tin
ue d)
St ud y
Tr an sc ri pt io n
Tr an sl at io n/ Te xt
G en er at io n
O L
LC R
Se ns or im
ot or
SE M
C og ni ti on
A /E F
Fu en te s et
al .
(2 00 9)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
le gi bi lit y, fo rm
, al ig nm
en t, si ze ,
sp ac in g, an d ra te
[M H A ]
– –
– –
- St re ss ed
ga it s,
ba la nc e, an d
ti m ed
m ov em
en ts
[P A N ES S]
– –
–
Fu en te s et
al .
(2 01 0)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
le gi bi lit y, fo rm
, al ig nm
en t, si ze ,
sp ac in g, an d ra te
[M H A ]
– –
– –
- St re ss ed
ga it s,
ba la nc e, an d
ti m ed
m ov em
en ts
[P A N ES S]
– –
–
G ra ce ,E nt ic ot te ta l.
(2 01 7)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
qu al it y an d sp ee d
ac ro ss fi ve
cu rs iv e
le tt er
se qu en ce s
– –
– –
- M ot or
pr ofi
ci en cy
[M A B C -2 ]
- Pa re nt -r ep or te d
so ci al
co m m un ic at io n
[S R S- 2]
- En jo ym
en t an d
be lie fs ab ou tw
ri ti ng
qu es ti on na ir e
- A tt en ti on al
be ha vi or s
[S W A N ]
G ra ce
et al . (2 01 8)
- M ov em
en t
dy na m ic s ac ro ss
fi ve
cu rs iv e le tt er
se qu en ce s
- N eu ro m ot or
no is e
- M ot or
pl an ni ng
– –
– –
– - Pa re nt -r ep or te d
re st ri ct iv e an d
re pe ti ti ve
be ha vi or s
[S R S- 2]
– –
G ra ce , R in eh ar t
et al . (2 01 7)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
er ro rs ,m
et ri cs ,a nd
dy na m ic s fo r
sp ee de d an d no n-
sp ee de d ta sk
co nd it io ns
– –
– –
- M ot or
pr ofi
ci en cy
[M A B C -2 ]
– - V er ba l IQ
an d
pe rc ep tu al IQ
[W A SI -I I; W IS C -I V ]
–
G ri sw
ol d et
al .
(2 00 2)
- Sp el lin
g [W
IA T]
- W ri tt en
ex pr es si on
[W IA T]
– –
– –
– –
–
H en de rs on
an d
G re en
(2 00 1)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
le gi bi lit y [E TC
H ]
– –
– –
– –
– –
Jo hn so n,
Pa pa do po ul os
et al . (2 01 3)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
sp ee d
[H PT
] - In fo rm
al an al ys is
of ha nd w ri ti ng
pa ra m et er s an d
ha nd w ri ti ng
er ro rs
– –
– –
- M ot or
pr ofi
ci en cy
[M A B C -2 ]
– - V er ba l
co m pr eh en si on
in de x, pe rc ep tu al
re as on in g in de x,
an d FI Q [W
A SI ;
W IS C -I V ]
–
Jo hn so n et
al .
(2 01 5)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
st ro ke
m et ri cs ,
st ro ke
dy na m ic s,
co ns is te nc y, an d
po w er
sp ec tr al
de ns it y an al ys is
ac ro ss cu rs iv e l's
w ri tt en
be tw ee n
gu id el in es
of tw o
si ze s (1 0 m m
or 40
m m )
– –
– –
– –
– –
(c on tin
ue d on
ne xt
pa ge )
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
12
T ab
le 4 (c on tin
ue d)
St ud y
Tr an sc ri pt io n
Tr an sl at io n/ Te xt
G en er at io n
O L
LC R
Se ns or im
ot or
SE M
C og ni ti on
A /E F
Jo hn so n,
Ph ill ip s
et al . (2 01 3)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
st ro ke
m et ri cs ,
st ro ke
dy na m ic s,
co ns is te nc y, an d
po w er
sp ec tr al
de ns it y an al ys is
ac ro ss fi ve
se ts of
fo ur
cu rs iv e le tt er
l's
– –
– –
- M ot or
pr ofi
ci en cy
[M A B C -2 ]
– –
–
K im
et al . (2 01 8)
- Sp el lin
g [W
R A T- 3]
– –
– –
– –
- FI Q [D A S; W A SI ;
W IS C -I II ]
–
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 3a )
- Sp el lin
g [W
IA T;
W J- R ]
- W ri tt en
ex pr es si on
[W IA T]
– –
– –
– - FI Q [W
IS C -I II ]
–
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 3b )
- Sp el lin
g [W
IA T;
W J- R ]
- W ri tt en
ex pr es si on
[W IA T]
– –
– –
– - FI Q [W
IS C -I II ]
–
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 6)
- Sp el lin
g [W
IA T]
- W ri tt en
ex pr es si on
[W IA T]
– –
– –
– - FI Q [W
IS C -I II ]
–
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 7)
– - W ri tt en
ex pr es si on
[W IA T,
W IA T- II ]
– –
– –
– - FI Q [W
IS C -I II ;
W IS C -I V ]
- V ig ila nc e an d
di st ra ct ib ili ty
[G D S]
- D ig it sp an
[W IS C -
II I, W IS C -I V ]
M ay es
an d C al ho un
(2 00 8)
– - W ri tt en
ex pr es si on
[W IA T- II ]
– –
– - Pr oc es si ng
sp ee d
in de x [W
IS C -I V ]
– - FI Q , ge ne ra l ab ili ty
in de x, ve rb al
co m pr eh en si on
in de x, pe rc ep tu al
re as on in g in de x,
an d w or ki ng
m em
or y in de x
[W IS C -I V ]
–
M yl es
et al . (2 00 3)
- H an dw
ri ti ng
le gi bi lit y [E TC
H ]
- Le tt er
fo rm
at io n,
si ze , al ig nm
en t,
an d sp ac in g
- Su bt es ts
(v oc ab ul ar y, st yl e,
lo gi ca l se nt en ce s,
se nt en ce
co m bi ni ng ,
co nt ex tu al
co nv en ti on s,
co nt ex tu al
la ng ua ge , an d st or y
co ns tr uc ti on ) an d
co m po si te s
(c on tr iv ed
w ri ti ng ,
sp on ta ne ou s
w ri ti ng , an d ov er al l
w ri ti ng ) [T O W L- 3]
– –
– –
– –
–
(c on tin
ue d on
ne xt
pa ge )
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
13
T ab
le 4 (c on tin
ue d)
St ud y
Tr an sc ri pt io n
Tr an sl at io n/ Te xt
G en er at io n
O L
LC R
Se ns or im
ot or
SE M
C og ni ti on
A /E F
Tr oy b et
al . (2 01 4)
– - C on te xt ua l
co nv en ti on s,
co nt ri ve d w ri ti ng ,
an d sp on ta ne ou s
w ri ti ng
su bt es ts
[T O W L- 3]
- Le xi ca l va ri ab le s
(l en gt h in
w or ds ,
le ng th
in se nt en ce s,
m ea n se nt en ce
le ng th , m ea n w or d
le ng th )
– –
– –
- Pr ag m at ic as pe ct s of
te xt
(s oc ia l w or ds ,
po si ti ve
em ot io n
w or ds , ne ga ti ve
em ot io n w or ds ,
co gn it iv e w or ds , an d
ca us al at tr ib ut io ns )
– –
Za jic
et al . (2 01 8)
– - O ve ra ll w ri ti ng ,
w or d co un t, an d
th em
at ic
or ga ni za ti on
an d
qu al it y [W
IA T- II I]
– –
– –
– - FI Q [W
A SI -I I]
- Pa re nt -r ep or te d
hy pe ra ct iv e an d
in at te nt iv e
sy m pt om
s [C on ne rs 3]
N ot e. O L =
or al
la ng ua ge ; LC
= lis te ni ng
co m pr eh en si on ; R =
re ad in g;
SE M =
so ci al , em
ot io na l, an d m ot iv at io na l; A /E F =
at te nt io n/ ex ec ut iv e fu nc ti on s; A B C =
A be rr an t B eh av io r C he ck lis t; A D H D -
R S =
A tt en ti on -D efi ci t/ H yp er ac ti vi ty
D is or de r- R at in g Sc al e; A W M A =
A ut om
at ed
W or ki ng
M em
or y A ss es sm
en t; B A S =
B ri ti sh
A bi lit y Sc al es ;B
PV S =
B ri ti sh
Pi ct ur e V oc ab ul ar y Sc al e; C EL F =
C lin
ic al
Ev al ua ti on
of La ng ua ge
Fu nd am
en ta ls ; D A S =
D iff er en ti al
A bi lit y Sc al es ; D A SH
= D et ai le d A ss es sm
en t of
Sp ee d of
H an dw
ri ti ng ; ET
C H =
Ev al ua ti on
To ol
of C hi ld re n' s H an dw
ri ti ng ; G D S =
G or do n
D ia gn os ti c Sy st em
; H PT
= H an dw
ri ti ng
Pe rf or m an ce
Te st ; IP A A =
In te gr at iv e Pr oc es si ng
A bi lit y A ss es sm
en t; M A B C =
M ov em
en t A ss es sm
en t B at te ry
fo r C hi ld re n;
M H A =
M in ne so ta
H an dw
ri ti ng
A ss es sm
en t; PA
N ES S =
Ph ys ic al an d N eu ro lo gi ca lE
xa m in at io n fo r Su bt le (M
ot or ) Si gn s; PP
V T =
Pe ab od y Pi ct ur e V oc ab ul ar y Te st ;S A T =
So ci al A tt ri bu ti on
Ta sk ;S C SI T =
So ut he rn
C al if or ni a Se ns or y
In te gr at io n Te st ; SR
S =
So ci al
R es po ns iv en es s Sc al e;
SS R S =
So ci al
Sk ill s R at in g Sy st em
; SW
A N =
St re ng th s an d W ea kn es se s of
A tt en ti on -D efi ci t/ H yp er ac ti vi ty
D is or de r Sy m pt om
s an d N or m al
B eh av io ur
Sc al e; TB
PK =
Te st of B as ic Ph
on ic K no w le dg e; TI P- PS
= Te st of In ne rv at or y Pr og ra m -P er ce nt ag e Si m ila ri ty ;T IP -R S =
Te st of In ne rv at or y Pr og ra m -R
at io of Si ze ;T O LD
-I =
Te st of La ng ua ge
D ev el op m en t- In te rm
ed ia te ; TO
LH =
Te st of
Le gi bl e H an dw
ri ti ng ; TO
W L =
Te st of
W ri tt en
La ng ua ge ; TR
O G -E =
Te st of
R ec ep ti on
of G ra m m ar -E le ct ro ni c V er si on ; TV
PS -R
= Te st of
V is ua l Pe rc ep tu al
Sk ill s (n on -m
ot or )- R ev is ed ; V M I=
B ee ry -B uk te ni ca
D ev el op m en ta l Te st of
V is ua l- M ot or
In te gr at io n;
W A IS =
W ec hs le r A du lt In te lli ge nc e Sc al e;
W A SI =
W ec hs le r A bb re vi at ed
Sc al e of
In te lli ge nc e;
W IA T =
W ec hs le r In di vi du al A ch ie ve m en t Te st ;W
IS C =
W ec hs le r In te lli ge nc e Sc al e fo r C hi ld re n; W J =
W oo dc oc k Jo hn so n; W J- R =
W oo dc oc k Jo hn so n- R ev is ed ;W
R A M L =
W id e R an ge
A ss es sm
en t of
M em
or y an d Le ar ni ng ; W R A T =
W id e R an ge
A ch ie ve m en t Te st .
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
14
T ab
le 5
Sk ill s as se ss ed
ac ro ss in te rv en ti on
st ud ie s ca te go ri ze d by
th e la ng ua ge
do m ai ns
an d m ed ia ti on al sy st em
s fr am
ew or k.
St ud y
Tr an sc ri pt io n
Tr an sl at io n/ Te xt
G en er at io n
O L
LC R
Se ns or im
ot or
SE M
C og ni ti on
A /E F
A sa ro
an d Sa dd le r
(2 00 9)
– - St or y el em
en ts an d ho lis ti c qu al it y sc al e
– –
– –
– –
- Ev id en ce
of pl an ni ng
A sa ro -S ad dl er
(2 01 4)
– - St or y el em
en ts , ho lis ti c qu al it y sc al e, an d
nu m be r of
w or ds
w ri tt en
– –
– –
– –
- Ev id en ce
of pl an ni ng
(n ot es
st ud en ts w ro te
on pa pe r or
ve rb al co m m en ts m ad e)
A sa ro -S ad dl er
an d B ak
(2 01 2)
– - H ol is ti c pe rs ua si ve
w ri ti ng
qu al it y an d
nu m be r of
w or ds
w ri tt en
fo r pe rs ua si ve
w ri ti ng
pr om
pt s
– –
– –
– –
- Ev id en ce
of pl an ni ng
(n ot es
st ud en ts w ro te
on pa pe r or
ve rb al co m m en ts m ad e)
A sa ro -S ad dl er
an d B ak
(2 01 4)
– - N um
be r of
es sa y el em
en ts , nu m be r of
no nf un ct io na l el em
en ts , ho lis ti c qu al it y,
nu m be r of
w or ds
w ri tt en
– –
– –
- Ev id en ce
of pe er
co lla bo ra ti on
– –
A sa ro -S ad dl er
an d
Sa dd le r (2 01 0)
– - N um
be r of
st or y el em
en ts , ov er al l ho lis ti c
qu al it y, an d nu m be r of
w or ds
w ri tt en
– –
– –
– - B el ie fs ab ou t th e
in te rv en ti on
(s oc ia l
va lid
it y)
- Ev id en ce
of pl an ni ng
(p la nn in g
ti m e)
A sa ro -S ad dl er
et al .
(2 01 5)
– - Q ua lit at iv e pr og re ss io n of
st ud en ts 'w
ri ti ng
sk ill s [D W SB W ]
- To ta l nu m be r of
in te lli gi bl e w or ds
- To ta l nu m be r of
un iq ue
w or ds
– –
– –
– –
–
B is ho p et
al . (2 01 5)
– - C or re ct w ri ti ng
se qu en ce s
- To ta l w or ds
w ri tt en
- A na ly ti ca lr ub ri c fo r as se ss in g in tr od uc ti on ,
or ga ni za ti on , m ai n id ea s an d de ta ils ,
se nt en ce s, tr an si ti on s, an d co nc lu si on
of w ri ti ng
sa m pl es
– –
– –
– - B el ie fs ab ou t th e
in te rv en ti on
(s oc ia l
va lid
it y)
–
C ra m er
an d M as on
(2 01 4)
– - H ol is ti c qu al it y sc or in g (s tr uc tu ra lly
or ga ni ze d re sp on se
th at
in cl ud es
a to pi c or
be lie f, th re e re as on s w it h ex pl an at io ns , a
co un te ra rg um
en t, a st at em
en t re fu ti ng
th e
co un te ra rg um
en t, an d an
en di ng )
– –
– –
- R ev is io ns
as se ss ed
fo r
qu al it y of
re vi si on s
du ri ng
in de pe nd en t
– - R ev is io ns
as se ss ed
fo r qu al it y
off er ed
by pe er
ed it or s an d
de gr ee
to w hi ch
au th or s
ut ili ze d fe ed ba ck
re ce iv ed
fr om
pe er
ed it or s
D el an o (2 00 7a )
– - To ta l w or ds
w ri tt en , nu m be r of
ac ti on
w or ds , nu m be r of
de sc ri bi ng
w or ds ,
nu m be r of
re vi si on s, an d ov er al l qu al it y
– –
– –
– –
–
D el an o (2 00 7b )
– - N um
be r of
w or ds
w ri tt en
an d fu nc ti on al
es sa y el em
en ts
– –
– –
– –
–
Ev m en ov a et
al . (2 01 6)
– - N um
be r of
w or ds
w ri tt en , nu m be r of
se nt en ce s in
ea ch
es sa y, tr an si ti on
w or ds
an d es sa y pa rt s (0 -8
sc al e) , an d ho lis ti c
qu al it y sc al e
– –
– –
– –
–
H au th
et al . (2 01 3)
– - W or ds
pe r es sa y, nu m be r of
es sa y pa rt s pe r
es sa y
– –
– –
– - St ra te gy
kn ow
le dg e
pr ob e
- B el ie fs ab ou t
in te rv en ti on
(s oc ia l
va lid
it y)
- Pl an ni ng
an d w ri ti ng
pr ob e
(c on tin
ue d on
ne xt
pa ge )
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
15
T ab
le 5 (c on tin
ue d)
St ud y
Tr an sc ri pt io n
Tr an sl at io n/ Te xt
G en er at io n
O L
LC R
Se ns or im
ot or
SE M
C og ni ti on
A /E F
M as on
et al . (2 01 0)
- W ri ti ng
fl ue nc y
[W J- R ]
- H ol is ti c qu al it y sc al e, nu m be r an d ty pe
of in te rv en ti on -s pe ci fi c co m po ne nt s, an d to ta l
w or ds
w ri tt en
– –
– –
1 –
–
M ou rg ka si an d
M av ro po ul ou
(2 01 8)
– - Le ng th
of te xt , nu m be r of
st or y el em
en ts ,
an d ho lis ti c qu al it y
– –
– –
- M en ta l st at e la ng ua ge
- B el ie fs ab ou t th e
in te rv en ti on
(s oc ia l
va lid
it y)
- Ev id en ce
of pl an ni ng
(n ot es
st ud en ts w ro te
on pa pe r or
ve rb al co m m en ts m ad e, to ta l
ti m e sp en t pl an ni ng
st or y)
Pr ic e et
al . (2 01 7)
– - N um
be r of
w or ds
w ri tt en , nu m be r of
el ab or at in g de ta ils
– –
– –
– –
–
R ou ss ea u et
al . (1 99 4)
– - N um
be r of
ad je ct iv es
pe r t- un it , nu m be r of
ne w ad je ct iv es , t- un it le ng th , an d qu al it y
ju dg m en t of
w ri ti ng
sa m pl es
– –
– –
– –
–
Sc hn ei de r et
al . (2 01 3)
- Ty pi ng
pr ofi
ci en cy
te st
- C or re ct w or d se qu en ce s ac ro ss m ed iu m s
(h an dw
ri ti ng ,w
or d pr oc es si ng ,a nd
sp ee ch -
re co gn it io n te ch no lo gy )
- W ri ti ng
fl ue nc y an d pr od uc ti on
- N um
be r of st or y pa rt s (o ve ra ll st or y qu al it y
ba se d on
7 el em
en ts )
– –
– –
– - B el ie fs ab ou t th e
in te rv en ti on
(s oc ia l
va lid
it y)
–
N ot e. O L =
or al
la ng ua ge ; LC
= lis te ni ng
co m pr eh en si on ; R =
re ad in g;
SE M =
so ci al , em
ot io na l, an d m ot iv at io na l; A /E F =
at te nt io n/ ex ec ut iv e fu nc ti on s; D W SB W =
D ev el op m en ta l W ri ti ng
Sc al e fo r
B eg in ni ng
W ri te rs ; W J- R =
W oo dc oc k- Jo hn so n R ev is ed .
1 R ep or te d pa rt ic ip an t be lie fs ab ou t th e in te rv en ti on
bu t di d no t di sa gg re ga te
th e da ta
by pa rt ic ip an t. N ot
in cl ud ed
as on ly
su bs et
of pa rt ic ip an ts w er e re co rd ed
as ha vi ng
a di ag no si s of
A SD
.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
16
(26%) reported SEM skills, 20 (43%) reported cognition skills, and 12 (26%) reported attention/executive functions skills. See Tables 4 and 5 for full assessment lists by category for descriptive and intervention studies, respectively.
3.2.1. Writing (transcription) Descriptive studies more often reported on transcription skills (n = 22, 76%) compared to included intervention studies (n = 2,
12%). Descriptive studies focused on spelling and handwriting (legibility and speed) with fewer focused on keyboarding and writing fluency. Intervention studies focused on writing fluency.
3.2.1.1. Descriptive. Descriptive studies predominantly reported average group-level spelling abilities with wide ability ranges from well-below average to well-above average (Dockrell et al., 2014; Estes et al., 2011; Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Stinson, 2012; Griswold, Barnhill, Myles, Hagiwara, & Simpson, 2002; Kim, Bal, & Lord, 2018; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Myles et al., 2003). Dockrell et al. (2014) reported higher group-level spelling performance in their ASD group compared to a specific language impairment (SLI) group.
Handwriting legibility and speed findings appeared mixed. For handwriting legibility, some studies reported no significant dif- ferences in performance between children with ASD to TD peers (Cartmill, Rodger, & Ziviani, 2009; Fuentes, Mostofsky, & Bastian, 2009, 2010), while others reported significantly lower performance for children with ASD compared to TD peers (Grace, Enticott, Johnson, & Rinehart, 2017) or to age-expected scores (Henderson & Green, 2001; Myles et al., 2003). One study reported highly variable handwriting legibility in children with ASD (Ashburner, Ziviani, & Pennington, 2012). Alaniz, Galit, Necesito, and Rosario (2015) indicated that only 78% of their ASD sample completed their handwriting legibility assessment (compared to 100% of their TD sample) but did not report performance scores. For handwriting speed, three studies reported no significant differences compared to TD peers (Cartmill et al., 2009; Fuentes et al., 2009, 2010), while one study reported below age-expected ability performance for two children (Henderson & Green, 2001). Different findings for speed-related outcomes were reported across studies, including differences in peak velocity but not movement duration (Grace, Rinehart, Enticott, & Johnson, 2017; Johnson et al., 2015), in broader stroke dynamics (Johnson, Papadopoulos et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2015), and in total letters written (Johnson, Papadopoulos et al., 2013). Ashburner et al. (2012) reported no significant differences between handwriting and keyboarding speeds. Dockrell et al. (2014) reported their ASD group outperformed their SLI group on handwriting speed.
Descriptive studies also reported on other handwriting skills (form, size, adjustment, spacing, and rate). Handwriting form studies either reported no group differences between ASD and TD groups (Cartmill et al., 2009; Fuentes et al., 2010) or lower and/or more variable performance in the ASD group (Dirlikov et al., 2017; Fuentes et al., 2009; Grace, Enticott et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2015). Handwriting size studies reported no group differences (Cartmill et al., 2009; Fuentes et al., 2009, 2010; Johnson, Papadopoulos et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2015) or specific performance differences in vertical and horizontal sizing (Johnson, Phillips et al., 2013). Handwriting spacing studies reported either no group differences (Fuentes et al., 2010; Grace, Enticott et al., 2017) or lower per- formance for individuals with ASD (Dirlikov et al., 2017; Fuentes et al., 2009; Johnson, Papadopoulos et al., 2013). Handwriting adjustment or rate studies reported no group differences (Fuentes et al., 2009, 2010).
Few studies reported on other transcription skills. Ashburner et al. (2012) reported no within-group differences when comparing text produced via handwriting and keyboarding. Grace, Rinehart et al. (2017) reported greater variability in handwriting errors and spacing for their ASD group during a speeded handwriting task compared to a non-speeded handwriting task. Foley-Nicpon et al. (2012) reported average group-level performance for Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ III; McGrew & Woodcock, 2001) Writing Fluency with scores ranging in the average to above average range. Two descriptive studies reported associations between transcription abilities: Dockrell et al. (2014) reported a moderate, positive correlation between spelling and handwriting fluency, and Ashburner et al. (2012) noted a qualitative negative relationship between handwriting legibility and speed.
3.2.1.2. Intervention. Two intervention studies reported on transcription skills. Mason, Kubina, Valasa, and Cramer (2010) reported a group-level increase for Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) Writing Fluency following SRSD instruction, with the participant with ASD increasing from 22 at pretest to 25 at posttest. Schneider, Codding, and Tryon (2013) incorporated a typing proficiency test prior to their intervention where all three participants demonstrated the ability to type at least 10 words per minute.
3.2.2. Writing (translation/text generation) Descriptive studies (n = 15, 52%) and intervention studies (n = 17, 100%) reported on a wide array of translation/text gen-
eration outcomes. Studies captured different aspects of text production using standardized, experimenter-designed, and curriculum- based assessments.
3.2.2.1. Descriptive. Descriptive studies that implemented a standardized writing assessment reported wide ability ranges. Numerous studies implemented a version of Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; The Psychological Corporation, 1992, 2002; Wechsler, 2009) and reported group-level below average to average written expression performance with very wide ability ranges (Griswold et al., 2002; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2008; Zajic et al., 2018). Similar performance was reported for one study (Mayes & Calhoun, 2003b) that used WJ-R Dictation and for two studies (Myles et al., 2003; Troyb et al., 2014) that used multiple subtests and composites from the Test of Written Language, 3rd Edition (TOWL-3; Hammill & Larsen, 1996). Two studies
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
17
focused on children with ASD with gifted IQ levels reported similar average performance with variable, wide ability ranges (Assouline, Foley Nicpon, & Dockery, 2012; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012).
Descriptive studies reporting on translation/text generation skills using curriculum-based or experimenter-designed assessments reported similar heterogeneous ability ranges. Brown et al. (2014) reported their ASD group performed lower than their TD group on two lower-order text features (syntactic complexity and lexical complexity) during a persuasive writing task, though groups did not differ on other lower-order (productivity, cohesiveness, and writing conventions) or higher-order (coherence, background in- formation, organization and structure, and tone) text features. Dockrell et al. (2014) reported their ASD group outperformed their SLI group on writing productivity and accuracy measures while showing no group difference in writing quality using a narrative task similar to the WIAT Written Expression task. Dillon and Underwood (2012) reported similar performance on narrative length, story coherence, and group elaboration among participant dyads (that included individuals with and without ASD) during a computer- mediated imaginative storytelling task. Ashburner et al. (2012) reported no writing quality differences in typed versus handwritten responses for their participants with ASD (though no scores were provided).
3.2.2.2. Intervention. Intervention studies predominantly implemented SRSD and reported on task-related outcomes. All studies that implemented SRSD that assessed for the number of included story elements and holistic writing quality found both increased following intervention (Asaro & Saddler, 2009; Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2014; Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Asaro-Saddler, 2014; Delano, 2007b; Evmenova et al., 2016; Hauth, Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Regan, 2013; Mason et al., 2010; Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018). Studies that assessed for either but not both saw positive effects in story element inclusion (Schneider et al., 2013) and holistic quality (Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2012; Cramer & Mason, 2014; Delano, 2007a). Numerous SRSD studies reported most participants increased in word production following the intervention (Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2014; Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Asaro-Saddler, 2014; Cramer & Mason, 2014; Delano, 2007a, 2007b; Hauth et al., 2013), but some studies reported at least one participant decreased or showed no change (Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2012; Evmenova et al., 2016; Mason et al., 2010; Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018). Schneider et al. (2013) reported increased word production for SRSD when combined with speech recognition software but not with handwriting. Other SRSD studies reported decreased use of nonfunctional essay elements (Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2014) and increased use of action and describing words (Delano, 2007a).
Other intervention studies reported on other interventions focused on writing proficiency. Asaro-Saddler, Knox, Meredith, and Akhmedjanova (2015) reported that a technology-based intervention increased production of intelligible words (from 41 to 65) and unique words (from 27 to 31) assessed via the Developmental Writing Scale for Beginning Writers (Sturm, Cali, Nelson, & Staskowski, 2012) for six out of seven participants. Bishop, Sawyer, Alber-Morgan, and Boggs (2015) reported a graphic-organizer-based in- tervention increased the number of total words written and correct word sequences while also doubling the analytical rubric scores for three participants. Price et al. (2017) reported their one participant with ASD increased in their number of produced words and elaborating details following a sentence-writing intervention. Rousseau, Krantz, Poulson, Kitson, and McClannahan (1994) reported one participant increased in their adjective use, t-unit length (independent clause that includes any dependent clauses within/ attached to it), and writing quality following a sentence-combining intervention.
3.2.3. Oral language, listening comprehension, and reading Four descriptive studies (9%) and no intervention studies reported associations between writing and other language domain skills.
All four studies were descriptive studies, with three reporting oral language skills (10%) and one reporting reading skills (2%). No studies reported on listening comprehension skills.
3.2.3.1. Descriptive. Studies reported mixed associations between writing and oral language and reading. Brown et al. (2014) reported a positive, moderate association between oral language and persuasive writing quality; oral language contributed unique variance in persuasive writing quality (while controlling for integrative processing ability and age). Dockrell et al. (2014) reported mixed relationships between oral language (receptive vocabulary, receptive grammar, and formulated sentences) with transcription (handwriting fluency and spelling) and translation/text generation skills (correct word sequences and writing quality): a) receptive vocabulary showed a positive, moderate association with spelling; b) receptive grammar showed positive, weak associations with word production, correct word sequences, and spelling; and c) formulated sentences showed a positive, weak association with correct word sequences. Cartmill et al. (2009) reported mixed relationships between oral language (oral spelling and letter recognition) with transcription skills (handwriting speed or fluency): a) oral spelling showed a positive, moderate correlation with handwriting legibility, and b) letter recognition was unrelated to handwriting speed or legibility. For reading, Cartmill et al. (2009) reported no significant associations between handwriting speed or legibility with semantic word recognition or phonemic word recognition.
3.2.4. Sensorimotor Eleven (41%) descriptive studies and no intervention studies reported associations between writing and sensorimotor skills.
Descriptive studies reported consistent associations between transcription difficulties with broader visual-motor and graphomotor difficulties across standardized and experimenter-designed assessments that included the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI; Beery, 1997), the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition (MABC-2; Henderson, Sugden, & Barnett, 2007), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC; Wechsler, 2003), and the Physical and Neurological Examination for Subtle (Motor) Signs (PANESS; Denckla, 1985).
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
18
3.2.10. Descriptive Two studies reported on associations between writing skills with the VMI and WISC-III. In their study of children with ASD with
gifted IQs, Assouline et al. (2012) reported the WJ-III Broad Written Language was not associated with the VMI but showed a positive, moderate association with the WISC-III Processing Speed Index (PSI). Mayes and Calhoun (2008) reported a similar positive, moderate association between WISC-III PSI and WIAT-II Written Expression. Other studies reported group-level below average to average performance with wide ability ranges on the VMI and WISC-III PSI but did not report writing skill associations (Alaniz et al., 2015; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a, 2007).
A series of studies reported on positive associations between graphomotor (MABC-2) and transcription skills. Grace, Enticott et al. (2017) reported that half of their participants demonstrated MABC-2 scores in the definitely impaired range, with motor proficiency demonstrating negative, moderate associations with learning to write and spacing difficulties. Grace, Rinehart et al. (2017) reported a moderate, negative association between motor proficiency and total errors in a non-speeded handwriting condition (but not in a speeded handwriting condition). Johnson, Papadopoulos et al. (2013) and Johnson, Phillips et al. (2013) reported children with ASD demonstrated lower group-level motor proficiency compared to TD peers or peers with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Johnson, Papadopoulos et al. (2013) further reported that motor proficiency was a significant, negative predictor of handwriting spacing and errors in their ASD group but not in their ADHD or TD groups.
Three studies reported mixed findings between PANESS performance and transcription skills. Fuentes et al. (2009) found timed movement scores to be the strongest predictor of handwriting abilities (while controlling for age, gender, cognitive abilities, and additional PANESS subtests), but Fuentes et al. (2010) reported no PANESS subtest significantly predicted handwriting abilities. Dirlikov et al. (2017) reported their ASD group performed lowest on PANESS Total Score compared to both comparison groups (ADHD and TD) and demonstrated positive associations between PANESS Total Score and letter-form performance across test con- ditions (copy, trace, and fast trace).
Two studies reported associations between writing and sensorimotor skills using other assessment tools. Alaniz et al. (2015) found no association between handwriting legibility and grip or pinch strength. Cartmill et al. (2009) reported no association between kinesthesia and handwriting speed or legibility and a positive, moderate association between visual perception and handwriting legibility (but not handwriting speed).
3.2.5. Social, emotional, and motivational Nine (31%) descriptive studies and three (18%) intervention studies reported on associations between writing and SEM abilities.
Studies predominantly examined relationships between ASD symptom severity and writing skills with others examined peer colla- boration, mental state language use, or writing motivations and perceptions.
3.2.5.1. Descriptive. Five descriptive studies examined the relationship between writing and social communication skills assessed via the Social Responsiveness Scale, 2nd Edition (SRS-2; Constantino & Gruber, 2012). In relation to SRS-2 parent report, Brown et al. (2014) reported moderate, negative associations with persuasive writing quality; Dirlikov et al. (2017) reported no significant associations with transcription (letter-form score); and Grace, Enticott et al. (2017) reported positive, moderate associations with difficulties learning to write and spacing difficulties. In relation to SRS-2 teacher report, Dockrell et al. (2014) reported negative, weak-to-moderate associations with word production, correct word sequences, and writing quality. SRS-2 teacher report negatively predicted writing quality (when controlling for age; Dockrell et al., 2014), but SRS-2 parent report did not predict persuasive writing quality (when controlling for age, language, and cognitive abilities; Brown et al., 2014). Dirlikov et al. (2017) and Grace, Enticott et al. (2017) only reported associations. Dockrell et al. (2014) additionally reported that SRS scores did not differ between participants with ASD who did and did not complete the writing task. Grace, Johnson, Rinehart, and Enticott (2018) reported a moderate, negative association between pen lifts in one experimental condition (eeee) and SRS-2 parent report of restricted interests and repetitive behavior using a combined total sample (ASD and TD).
Remaining descriptive studies reported on relationships between writing and other SEM skills. Ashburner et al. (2012) reported participants and their parents and teachers rated motivations for keyboarding higher than for handwriting, but only parents and teachers reported higher positive perceptions for keyboarding over handwriting (as participants with ASD reported similar per- ceptions for keyboarding and handwriting). Brown et al. (2014) reported a positive, moderate association between persuasive writing quality and a social attribution task, but the task did not significantly predict writing quality (while controlling for age). Dillon and Underwood (2012) found no quantitative difference between ASD and TD groups in the use of thought bubbles during a computer- mediated instructional writing task but observed a qualitative distinction in the use of thought bubbles in error. When their TD children made an error, they did not reference the error; however, when children with ASD made an error, they referenced these errors explicitly to show awareness of the rule violation (e.g., commenting on using psychic powers to be able to read someone else’s thoughts). Dillon and Underwood (2012) additionally found no group differences in the use of mental state terms (i.e., desires, emotions, intentions, knowledge, and thoughts) in the produced writing samples. Estes et al. (2011) reported the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliot, 1990) did not predict spelling abilities. Troyb et al. (2014) reported no differences in group-level performance on pragmatic aspects of their TOWL-3 writing samples (social words, positive and negative emotion words, cognitive words, and causal attributions) between their ASD, TD and optimal outcome groups.
3.2.5.2. Intervention. Three intervention studies focused on relationships between writing and different SEM skills. Asaro-Saddler and Bak (2014) reported qualitative observations about increases in peer interactions among participants, with participants going from none at baseline to consistent occurrences. They noted that these interactions required initial modeling and scaffolding but
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
19
progressed into spontaneous, independent interactions that included group discussions, use of self-statements, sharing instances of transfer, and communicating opinions through sharing their writing samples. Mourgkasi and Mavropoulou (2018) reported participants increased their use of mental state terms in their writing samples following SRSD implementation. Cramer and Mason (2014) taught a structured peer revision strategy and recorded the number and quality of peer recommendations received and used by participant authors. During two phases, one participant with AS received and implemented numerous revisions based on this peer feedback, but no subject-specific information beyond counts was reported.
3.2.6. Cognition Sixteen (55%) descriptive studies and four (24%) intervention studies reported associations between writing and cognitive skills.
Descriptive studies predominantly examined the associations between writing and IQ reported via the WISC (Wechsler, 1991, 2003), the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999, 2011), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS; Wechsler, 1997), the British Ability Scales (BAS; Elliott, Smith, & McCulloch, 1997), and the Differential Ability Scales (DAS; Elliott, 1990). An additional subset of descriptive studies reported on memory skills. Intervention studies focused on writing beliefs and writing strategy knowledge assessed via social validity questionnaires and interviews.
3.2.6.1. Descriptive. Numerous descriptive studies reported on the associations between FIQ and writing skills. Estes et al. (2011) reported no association between DAS General Conceptual Ability and spelling skills, but Kim et al. (2018) reported that FIQ at age three significantly predicted spelling skills at ages nine and 18. Mayes and Calhoun (2003a) reported positive, moderate associations between FIQ and spelling in preschool and school-age children but no similar association between FIQ and written expression in school-age children. Mayes and Calhoun (2008) reported a positive, strong association between FIQ and written expression. Mayes and Calhoun (2006) reported a high prevalence of written expression difficulties (60%) and a low prevalence of spelling difficulties (9%) in their participants with ASD but did not report interrelationships. Mayes and Calhoun (2007) reported a similar high prevalence of written expression difficulties (64%) but did not report on spelling difficulties. Zajic et al. (2018) accounted for FIQ as a covariate but did not report on its relationship to written expression abilities.
Four studies reported associations for verbal and nonverbal IQ with writing. Grace, Rinehart et al. (2017) reported no significant associations between spacing between words during speeded and non-speeded conditions with either verbal or nonverbal IQ. Johnson, Papadopoulos et al. (2013) reported nonverbal IQ to be the best predictor (alongside the MABC-2) of handwriting spacing and verbal IQ to be the best predictor of handwriting speed; neither verbal IQ nor nonverbal IQ were the best predictors of hand- writing errors. Mayes and Calhoun (2008) reported verbal and nonverbal IQ showed positive, moderate associations with WIAT-II Written Expression. However, verbal IQ alongside WISC-IV PSI showed the strongest associations with written expression, and verbal IQ remained a significant predictor of written expression abilities alongside WISC-IV PSI. Mayes and Calhoun (2008) did not report further estimates for nonverbal IQ. Assouline et al. (2012) reported non-significant associations for both verbal IQ and nonverbal IQ with WJ-III Broad Written Language for their participants with ASD with elevated IQs. Two studies only reported associations for non-verbal IQ with writing. Brown et al. (2014) reported a non-significant association between persuasive writing quality and nonverbal IQ. Dockrell et al. (2014) reported no associations between nonverbal IQ and word production, correct word sequences, and writing quality.
Six descriptive studies reported associations between memory and writing skills. Mayes and Calhoun (2008) reported a positive, moderate association between the WISC-IV Working Memory Index (WMI) and WIAT-II Written Expression, but memory was not one of the strongest predictors. Assouline et al. (2012) reported a positive, moderate association between WISC-IV WMI and WJ-III Broad Written Language, and WISC-IV WMI was the best predictor of WJ-III Broad Written Language. Dirlikov et al. (2017) reported negative, weak-to-moderate associations between WISC-IV WMI and letter-form scores for copy, trace, and fast trace handwriting conditions (with higher letter-form scores representing worse performance). Brown et al. (2014) reported positive, moderate asso- ciations between persuasive writing quality and performance on two sentence rearranging tasks (involving stories with either the- matic cues only or thematic and temporal cues) but only thematic accuracy remained as the significant predictor of writing quality (while controlling for language abilities and age). Cartmill et al. (2009) reported mixed associations between handwriting and visual or verbal memory abilities: visual memory was not associated with handwriting speed or legibility, and verbal memory demonstrated a positive, moderate association with handwriting legibility but not with handwriting speed. Dockrell et al. (2014) reported no associations between verbal or visual working memory with word production, correct writing sequences, or writing quality.
One descriptive study reported participant enjoyment or beliefs about writing. Grace, Enticott et al. (2017) reported that their ASD group did not differ from their TD group in handwriting enjoyment via a self-report questionnaire, but their ASD group de- monstrated slightly higher response variability than their TD group.
3.2.6.2. Intervention. Intervention studies predominantly reported on writing beliefs and attitudes via social validity assessments. Five studies reported participants believed they had become better writers following the intervention (Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Bishop et al., 2015; Hauth et al., 2013; Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018; Schneider et al., 2013), and participants across numerous studies commented that the instructed strategies had helped them remember how to better structure their stories (Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Bishop et al., 2015; Hauth et al., 2013; Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018). Hauth et al. (2013) reported participants recalled taught strategy components with 100% accuracy and reconstructed graphic organizers from memory. Schneider et al. (2013) reported participants generally preferred keyboarding or using a speech-recognition program rather than handwriting, and all participants preferred SRSD paired with a speech recognition program rather than SRSD paired with handwriting.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
20
3.2.7. Attention/executive functions Five (17%) descriptive studies and six (35%) intervention studies reported associations between writing skills and attention/
executive functions skills. Descriptive studies generally reported on attention skills, while intervention studies focused on planning and executive functions skills.
3.2.7.1. Descriptive. Descriptive studies used a variety of different approaches to capture associations between writing and attention/ executive functions. Several studies relied on parent report of attentional behaviors. Grace, Enticott et al. (2017) reported a positive, moderate association between inattentive symptoms and difficulties with learning to write and positive, moderate associations between inattentive/hyperactive symptom severity with difficulties with learning to write and handwriting spacing. Zajic et al. (2018) reported on group-level written expression performance differences in an ASD group with elevated inattentive/hyperactive difficulties compared to an ASD group without attentional difficulties or their comparison groups (TD and ADHD groups). The elevated attention difficulty group demonstrated lower performance on WIAT-III Theme Development/Text Organization but not on WIAT-III Word Count. Dirlikov et al. (2017) reported a positive, weak association between attentional difficulties and letter-form score for the copy condition but no associations between attentional difficulties and trace or fast trace conditions. Estes et al. (2011) reported no associations between irritability or hyperactivity with spelling abilities. Mayes and Calhoun (2007) reported 78% of their ASD group demonstrated impaired attention but did not report specific relationships between attentional and writing skills.
3.2.7.2. Intervention. Six intervention studies reported collecting evidence of planning occurrences during SRSD instruction (Asaro & Saddler, 2009; Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2012; Asaro-Saddler, 2014; Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018). Studies reported none-to-minimal planning behaviors during baseline conditions with noted increases in time spent planning and use of planning strategies during the intervention and maintenance conditions. Planning behaviors mimicked those taught during the intervention (Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2012), including list making and using mnemonic devices and bullet points (Asaro & Saddler, 2009; Asaro-Saddler, 2014). Hauth et al. (2013) reported overall increases in time spent planning for all participants (individual data for the two participants with ASD was not reported) via probes throughout the intervention where teachers recorded how much time participants spent planning (i.e., engagement with a graphic organizer, time spent using prewriting strategies, or points when students paused to think before writing). Cramer and Mason (2014) reported their one participant with AS made five revisions (two moderate and three substantial) during independent revision sessions, but no additional information was provided.
4. Discussion
Children with ASD demonstrate heterogeneous writing skills across the school-age years, but relatively little remains known about how research studies have examined these skills. Results from this review from a language domains and mediational systems per- spective across descriptive and intervention studies highlights how little is known about the writing development of individuals with ASD. Studies represent a wide array of transcription and translation/text generation skills (though predominantly in descriptive research for transcription skills), but relatively few studies report on associations between writing skills and language domain or mediational systems skills. Furthermore, findings highlight the absence of writing theoretical frameworks in reviewed studies.
4.1. Study characteristics
The high number of total participants is unexpected given the dearth of available research, but the number of unique participants may be far fewer given that some studies explicitly included the same participants (Grace et al., 2018; Grace, Enticott et al., 2017; Grace, Enticott et al., 2017; Johnson, Papadopoulos et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2015). Other studies included similar participant demographics (Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a, 2003b) with potential study overlap (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006, 2007; Mayes & Calhoun, 2008). Participants appear disproportionately represented across research designs, as descriptive studies captured 96% of all par- ticipants. Given that intervention studies predominantly adopt single-case research designs (e.g., Accardo et al., 2019; Pennington & Delano, 2012), this finding is not completely unexpected. Journal representation appears disproportionately split between research designs, with descriptive studies predominantly published in ASD research journals and intervention studies predominantly published in special education research journals. As expected, intervention studies targeted individuals with ASD with identified writing challenges who may only represent a subset of the individuals included in the descriptive studies.
Studies differed in their inclusion of a direct ASD symptom severity assessment at the time of the study. Descriptive studies often included a direct assessment, while intervention studies generally relied on available diagnostic information. Cognitive ability as- sessment appeared similar: while many studies reported cognitive ability estimates, they often used different assessments or did not specify when the assessment took place. Though cognitive assessment variability may not be of concern (see Klinger et al., 2018), the inconsistent assessment choices (particularly for intervention studies) is of concern when cognitive abilities predict academic achievement (Keen et al., 2016). Most studies reported a higher proportion of male participants and included participants across a wide age range. As gender and age can affect written language development (see Graham, 2018), future targeted research may offer further insights into their roles specifically for individuals with ASD.
4.2. Study quality
Major quality concerns for descriptive studies fell on reporting relationships between variables, including a power analysis or
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
21
discussing sample size limitations, and conducting recruitment strategies based on random selection of participants from larger recruitment pools. These concerns limit generalizing broader inferences from reported associations. Major concerns for intervention studies fell on assessment of social validity and intervention generalization. Similarly, these concerns impact the takeaways regarding the relative effectiveness of the implemented intervention approaches.
Studies predominantly referenced broader findings from writing research at least once but often did not reference writing theory. The lack of reference to writing theory is a substantive issue requiring attention in future research. Incorporating perspectives from broader frameworks may help inform studies that explicitly examine the relationships between writing-related skills and ASD-specific areas of difficulty. Similar work has offered novel perspectives to the writing development of children with SLDs (see Connelly & Dockrell, 2016). Furthermore, including theoretical perspectives may benefit broader writing research as well. Incorporating per- spectives from ASD research into writing research may offer more nuanced understandings of writing development that improve upon existing frameworks.
4.3. Language domain and mediational system skills
Language domain and mediational systems skills appeared disproportionately represented across studies. Studies predominantly focused on either transcription or translation/text generation skills (with more equal representation among descriptive studies compared to intervention studies). Few studies examined associations between written language and other language domains. Mediational systems skills were more represented but greatly varied across included studies.
4.3.1. Transcription and translation/text generation skills: heterogeneous skills with few overlapping studies Descriptive studies noted highly variable transcription and translation/text generation skills, while intervention studies focused
on targeted translation/text generation skill instruction. Studies assessed a wide range of different spelling, handwriting, and written expression skills using standardized, curriculum-based, and experimenter-designed assessments.
Studies reported more frequent challenges with handwriting compared to spelling skills. Spelling studies reported variable but average group-level skills, while handwriting studies reported predominant challenges for the ASD group (particularly legibility and speed). These findings align with previous findings (Kushki et al., 2011) and offer additional insights based on more recent hand- writing research (e.g., Dirlikov et al., 2017; Grace, Enticott et al., 2017; Grace, Rinehart et al., 2017; Grace et al., 2018; Johnson, Papadopoulos et al., 2013; Johnson, Phillips et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2015). Each handwriting study reported on a wide array of potential handwriting difficulty areas for children with ASD, with most focused on distinct handwriting subcomponent skills (e.g., movement dynamics, neuromotor noise, and motor planning) using carefully chosen task manipulations (see Table 4). However, only descriptive studies assessed handwriting skills, leaving a gap in the intervention literature.
Descriptive studies offered few insights into specific translation/text generation skills. Findings across assessments suggested overall heterogeneous ability ranges across assessments, though group-level performance often fluctuated in the below-average to average ranges. When studies used multiple subtests from a single assessment like the TOWL-3 (Myles et al., 2003; Troyb et al., 2014), findings supported highly variable group-level performance. Two studies offered more exhaustive approaches: Brown et al. (2014) broke down performance on lower- and higher-order textual features, and Dillon and Underwood (2012) discussed multiple task- related features across participant dyads. As writing assessments discriminate writing challenges differently depending on the writing skills assessed (e.g., Mayes, Calhoun, & Lane, 2005), the use of many different writing assessments makes overall interpretations difficult beyond the consistent finding of highly variable individual-level writing skills.
Intervention studies predominantly assessed translation/text generation using writing samples collected during writing inter- ventions. Participants with ASD generally showed improvement in their writing skills following targeted instruction, though studies included some important distinctions. For example, though studies predominantly implemented SRSD, studies often measured dif- ferent outcomes, with some included only sporadically (i.e., growth in story elements or holistic writing quality, word production, and nonfunctional essay elements). Some studies adopted novel intervention approaches, like Schneider et al. (2013) who compared intervention approaches using different transcription modalities to highlight the effects of the composing medium during writing instruction. Remaining studies showed similar participant growth in proximal writing measures based on targeted intervention procedures. These findings align with the growing body of literature on the effectiveness of SRSD as an intervention framework for assisting struggling writers (Harris & Graham, 2016), though its implementation with children with ASD remains relatively recent (Asaro-Saddler, 2016).
Few studies reported associations between distinct writing skills, leaving relatively little known about these interrelationships. Some studies explicitly reported on multiple writing skills (i.e., Myles et al., 2003), while others included multiple domains due to a focus on broader academic skill assessment (e.g., Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012; Griswold et al., 2002; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a, 2003b, 2006). Future research needs to explicitly account for multiple writing skills to continue understanding the nature of writing diffi- culties in children with ASD, an area of particular importance as difficulties in one process can impact and exacerbate difficulties in other writing processes (Graham, 2018; Hayes & Berninger, 2014).
4.3.2. Language domains: neglected research areas Only three studies (6%) reported on associations between writing and other language skills (Brown et al., 2014; Cartmill et al.,
2009; Dockrell et al., 2014). These studies offer important initial insights but remain inconclusive without further research. Ongoing research in language may help explain some of the noted heterogeneity observed in writing skills, particularly given that children with ASD demonstrate heterogeneous language skills (Bauminger-Zviely, 2013, 2014; Kim et al., 2014) that are expected to impact
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
22
later-developing writing skills (Berninger, 2015). For further discussions about the interrelationships between language and writing development in children with ASD, see Brown et al. (2014), Dockrell et al. (2014), and Zajic et al. (2019).
4.3.3. Mediational systems: emerging evidence and mixed findings Studies reported on a variety of different associations between writing and mediational systems skills. While studies examined
these skills more often than language domain skills, current approaches remained limited. Numerous descriptive studies reported consistent positive relationships between graphomotor and writing skills based on stan-
dardized assessment findings (e.g., VMI, MABC-2, and WISC). Specific graphomotor skills seemed to be an important factor for certain handwriting skills or for tasks with specific demands. For example, Grace, Rinehart et al. (2017) reported significant associations between motor proficiency and handwriting errors only in their non-speeded handwriting condition, and Dirlikov et al. (2017) reported similar associations between motor development and different handwriting task conditions. However, the current literature base focused on graphomotor and transcription-level skills, leaving less known about the relationship between sensorimotor de- velopment and translation/text generation skills. Furthermore, no studies examined relationships between sensorimotor skills and transcription or translation/text generation skills in intervention contexts.
Relatively few studies examined the relationships between SEM and writing skills. Studies focused on relationships between social communication (often measured via ASD symptom severity measures) and writing skills but often differed in their measures. Descriptive studies highlight that parent- and teacher-reported social communication skills appear associated with handwriting skills (Dirlikov et al., 2017; Grace, Enticott et al., 2017) and writing quality (Brown et al., 2014; Dockrell et al., 2014), though relationships differed by writing assessment. Numerous studies explored niche areas that offered preliminary insights into necessary further re- search, particularly regarding the impact of SRSD on peer interactions (Asaro-Saddler & Bak, 2014), peer revisions (Cramer & Mason, 2014), and mental state terms (Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018) as well as the attention to how task items like thought bubbles can be intentionally manipulated (Dillon & Underwood, 2012), the use of pragmatic concepts in text (Troyb et al., 2014), and the underlying preferences and motivations for engaging with different writing modalities (Ashburner et al., 2012). Further exploration is needed concerning how social communication skills may affect writing development.
Numerous studies (predominantly descriptive studies) assessed cognitive skills, but relatively few reported on associations with writing skills. Descriptive studies reported consistent positive associations between cognitive and written expression skills but not between cognitive and spelling skills (Estes et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2018; Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a, 2008). Though one study highlighted FIQ as the best predictor of written expression skills (Mayes & Calhoun, 2008), another study found FIQ to be unrelated to written expression skills (Mayes & Calhoun, 2003a). A handful of studies reported associations specifically for verbal or nonverbal IQ for handwriting (Grace, Rinehart et al., 2017; Johnson, Papadopoulos et al., 2013) and written expression skills (Assouline et al., 2012; Brown et al., 2014; Dockrell et al., 2014; Mayes & Calhoun, 2008). While FIQ and associated cognitive skills appear important to understanding writing development in children with ASD, a similar limitation as observed with other skill areas was found regarding the lack of inclusion of FIQ in intervention studies beyond its use as a measure for participant inclusion.
Fewer studies focused on other cognitive skills. Several studies highlighted the roles of different memory skills, including working memory (Assouline et al., 2012; Dirlikov et al., 2017; Mayes & Calhoun, 2008) and verbal and visual memory (Cartmill et al., 2009; Dockrell et al., 2014). A small subset of descriptive and intervention studies reported on writing beliefs either in general (Grace, Enticott et al., 2017) or in reference to an intervention (Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Bishop et al., 2015; Hauth et al., 2013; Mourgkasi & Mavropoulou, 2018; Schneider et al., 2013). Findings align with memory and self-beliefs being important factors that influence writing development (Graham, 2018; Hayes & Berninger, 2014) as well as the reported potential for memory difficulties to impact academic performance in children with ASD (Bauminger-Zviely, 2013, 2014). However, while inquiry into cognitive skills relatively the most support compared to other mediational systems skills, these findings require further targeted examination.
Descriptive and intervention studies appeared split in their focus on attention/executive functions skills. Descriptive studies focused on attentional behaviors, and intervention studies focused on planning behaviors. Descriptive studies highlighted that at- tentional challenges may influence transcription (Dirlikov et al., 2017; Grace, Enticott et al., 2017) and translation/text generation (Zajic et al., 2018) skills, but attentional challenges may only occur for some children with ASD (e.g., Dirlikov et al., 2017; Zajic et al., 2018). Findings support the role of attention as a lower-order executive function process to help guide higher-order processes in writing development (Graham, 2018; Hayes & Berninger, 2014), but more research is needed that addresses the roles of different attentional processes during writing. Intervention studies, in contrast, focused on planning behaviors. Studies found that planning behaviors increased following intervention, which aligns with the underlying principles of SRSD and its focus on self-regulating the writing process (e.g., Harris & Graham, 2016; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). Findings highlight that structured intervention approaches can be effective practices for some children with ASD who struggle with writing, but further research needs to examine planning behaviors beyond intervention contexts and the roles of attention/executive functions on broader writing development.
4.4. Relationship to previous reviews
This review considered a substantially larger sample and retained a higher number of studies than previously conducted reviews. Some retained studies overlapped with those included in prior reviews. Five of the seven studies reported in Kushki et al. (2011) were retained, with two studies excluded due to study design and participant age ranges. Six of the 15 studies reported in Pennington and Delano (2012) were retained, with nine studies excluded due to participants demonstrating a co-occurring ID/SCD. All 11 studies reported in Asaro-Saddler (2016) were retained. Seven of the 13 studies reported in Finnegan and Accardo (2018) were retained, with six studies excluded due to participant age ranges, assessment or instruction in a language other than English, or incomplete reporting
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
23
of writing measures. Fourteen of the 24 studies reported in Accardo et al. (2019) were retained, with 10 studies excluded due to participants demonstrating a co-occurring ID/SCD and to participant age ranges.
This review builds upon the findings offered by previous reviews. Handwriting challenges noted in this review expand upon those offered by Kushki et al. (2011). Keen et al. (2016) expressed similar concerns about the representation of female participants and noted similar wide ability ranges for spelling, handwriting, and written expression skills. Asaro-Saddler (2016) noted similar needs for more robust measures of specific skills (e.g., planning behaviors beyond solely intervention observation) and for larger samples (particularly in intervention studies). Numerous past reviews have touched on the dearth of current research studies focused on instructional supports (Accardo et al., 2019; Asaro-Saddler, 2016; Pennington & Delano, 2012). In contrast to Finnegan and Accardo (2018), findings suggested that ASD and special education journals are both predominant outlets for studies relevant to writing development in children with ASD (in contrast to their findings suggesting predominantly ASD research journals). Further, included studies highlighted distinct challenges in handwriting but not spelling, a contrast to their findings of both handwriting and spelling difficulties. However, this difference may be due to study inclusion differences (as this review included studies without comparison TD groups and excluded two studies with spelling outcomes due to participant age ranges and non-English writing assessments). Regardless, the offered takeaways between these reviews align to suggest that assessment variability makes it difficult to offer a definitive, comprehensive picture of the overall writing development of children with ASD.
5. Implications
Research studies have focused on specific challenges across transcription and translation/text generation while not systematically attending to the associations between writing skills or the associations between writing skills and other language domain and mediational systems skills. Practitioners should be wary when considering what is known about the expected writing development of children with ASD or what the expected challenges are with writing that a child with ASD may experience. Practitioners must be aware of currently established best intervention practices that have been summarized in recent reviews (Accardo et al., 2019; Asaro- Saddler, 2015, 2016; Finnegan & Accardo, 2018; Pennington & Delano, 2012) and should draw from resources that emphasize the need for combined approaches that endorse best practices based on ASD and writing research (see Zajic & Asaro-Saddler, 2019).
More targeted research needs to draw from both writing and ASD research and theory to better understand the writing strengths and challenges of children with ASD. Notable areas of needed further research include examining how writing skills are related within the written language domain (i.e., associations between spelling, handwriting, and written expression abilities) and examining relationships between the written language domain with other language domain and mediational systems skills. Ongoing research needs to takes into consideration the broader educational development of children with ASD (e.g., Bauminger-Zviely, 2013, 2014) alongside the complexity of writing development (Berninger, 2015; Graham, 2018; Hayes & Berninger, 2014). Additional descriptive research may also help inform the ongoing development of effective instructional practices, as such approaches require bridging perspectives across disciplines to offer new insights into supporting and understanding written language development (see Zajic et al., 2019 for further discussion).
6. Limitations and future research
Specific limitations about the search process and the use of exclusionary criteria need to be considered. First, this review included more studies than prior reviews but excluded studies with assessments in languages other than English and participants with a co- occurring ID/SCD. These criteria excluded 22 studies during the eligibility screening process (though only 3/16 of the studies excluded for not assessing writing in English were due to assessment language). Different languages require writers to make use of different linguistic processes while composing, and future research needs to consider how the orthographies of different languages affect the writing skills of children with ASD. Furthermore, to account for IQ as a mediational systems skill rather than a defining diagnostic feature, this review excluded individuals with a co-occurring ID/SCD. Understanding and supporting the writing devel- opment of these individuals with ASD has shown promising growth in recent years (see Pennington & Carpenter, 2019), and com- prehensive approaches are needed to better understand writing development across the autism spectrum (see Zajic & Asaro-Saddler, 2019). Conducting a similar review focused only on this population of individuals may offer further insights into the roles of oral language and cognition. Second, this review adopted a qualitative synthesis approach rather than a quantitative meta-analytic ap- proach due to the limited quantity of studies and the high variability of different outcomes within each skill area. As more studies become available, a quantitative approach is necessary to quantify the associations between writing skills and language domain and mediational systems skills.
Findings point to potential future research avenues and the need to more systematically include perspectives from ASD (i.e., Bauminger-Zviely, 2013, 2014; Fleury et al., 2014) and writing research (i.e., Graham, 2018; Hayes & Berninger, 2014) to understand and support the writing skills of individuals with ASD. The adopted framework offered one comprehensive approach to highlight areas across language domain and mediational systems skills in need of further research. Ongoing research should build from the noted gaps across descriptive and intervention research studies to continue understanding and supporting the writing development of children with ASD across the school-age years.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Authors disclose no personal, financial, or other conflicts of interest.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
24
Acknowledgements
Matthew C. Zajic received support from a Postdoctoral Research Training Program in Special Education and Early Intervention Grant (R324B180034) from theNational Center for Special Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences during the drafting of this manuscript. This support did not influence data collection, study design, analysis or interpretation of the data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit this article for publication. The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers whose feedback substantially helped focus this review.
References1
Accardo, A. L., Finnegan, E. G., Kuder, S. J., & Bomgardner, E. M. (2019). Writing interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A research synthesis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03955-9 Advance online publication.
*Alaniz, M. L., Galit, E., Necesito, C. I., & Rosario, E. R. (2015). Hand strength, handwriting, and functional skills in children with autism. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.016022.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. *Asaro, K., & Saddler, B. (2009). Effects of planning instruction on a young writer with Asperger syndrome. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(5), 268–275. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1053451208330895. *Asaro-Saddler, K. (2014). Self-regulated strategy development: Effects on writers with autism spectrum disorders. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 49(1), 78–91. Asaro-Saddler, K. (2015). Using evidence-based practices to teach writing to children with autism spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 60(1), 79–85. Asaro-Saddler, K. (2016). Writing instruction and self-regulation for students with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review of the literature. Topics in Language
Disorders, 36(3), 266–283. *Asaro-Saddler, K., & Bak, N. (2012). Teaching children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders to write persuasive essays. Topics in Language Disorders,
32(4), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318271813f. *Asaro-Saddler, K., & Bak, N. (2014). Persuasive writing and self-regulation training for writers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Special Education, 48(2),
92–105. *Asaro-Saddler, K., & Saddler, B. (2010). Planning instruction and self-regulation training: Effects on writers with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children,
77(1), 107–124. *Asaro-Saddler, K., Knox, H. M., Meredith, H., & Akhmedjanova, D. (2015). Using technology to support students with autism spectrum disorders in the writing
process: A pilot study. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 12(2), 103–119. *Ashburner, J., Ziviani, J., & Pennington, A. (2012). The introduction of keyboarding to children with autism spectrum disorders with handwriting difficulties: A help
or a hindrance? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 36(01), 32–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2012.6. *Assouline, S., Foley Nicpon, M., & Dockery, L. (2012). Predicting the academic achievement of gifted students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders, 42(9), 1781–1789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1403-x. Bauminger-Zviely, N. (2013). Social and academic abilities in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders. New York: The Guilford Press. Bauminger-Zviely, N. (2014). School-age children with ASD. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, S. J. Rogers, & K. A. Pelphrey (Eds.). Handbook of autism and pervasive
developmental disorders(4th ed.). New York: Oxford Press. Bazerman, C. (2015). What do sociocultural studies of writing tell us about learning to write? In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing
research(2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Beery, K. E. (1997). The Beery-Buktenica developmental test of visual-motor integration (rev. 4th ed.). Parsippany, NJ: Modern Curriculum Press. Berninger, V. W. (1994). The varieties of orthographic knowledge: I: Theoretical and developmental issues. Springer Science+Business Media. Berninger, V. W. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(4), 65–84. Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 69–80. Berninger, V. W. (2015). Interdisciplinary frameworks for schools: Best professional practices for serving the needs of all students. Washington, D.C: American Psychological
Association. Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: related yet unique language
systems in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 635–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019319. Berninger, V. W., & Richards, T. L. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. New York: Academic Press. *Bishop, A. E., Sawyer, M., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Boggs, M. (2015). Effects of a graphic organizer training package on the persuasive writing of middle school students
with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 290–302. *Brown, H. M., Johnson, A. M., Smyth, R. E., & Oram Cardy, J. (2014). Exploring the persuasive writing skills of students with high-functioning autism spectrum
disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(11), 1482–1499. *Cartmill, L., Rodger, S., & Ziviani, J. (2009). Handwriting of eight-year-old children with autistic spectrum disorder: An exploration. Journal of Occupational Therapy,
Schools, & Early Intervention, 2(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411240903146426. Connelly, V., & Dockrell, J. (2016). Writing development and instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.).
Handbook of writing research (pp. 349–363). (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social responsiveness scale (SRS). Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services. Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Sage Publications. Corbett, B. A., & Iqbal, Y. S. (2018). Clinical assessment of neuropsychological functioning in autism spectrum disorder. In S. Goldstein, & S. Ozonoff (Eds.). Assessment
of autism spectrum disorder (pp. 263–307). (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. *Cramer, A. M., & Mason, L. H. (2014). The effects of strategy instruction for writing and revising persuasive quick writes for middle school students with emotional
and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 40(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.17988/0198-7429-40.1.37. *Delano, M. E. (2007a). Improving written language performance of adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 345–351. *Delano, M. E. (2007b). Use of strategy instruction to improve the story writing skills of a student with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 22(4), 252–258. Denckla, M. B. (1985). Revised neurological examination and subtle signs. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 773–779. *Dillon, G., & Underwood, J. (2012). Computer mediated imaginative storytelling in children with autism. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70,
169–178. *Dirlikov, B., Younes, L., Nebel, M. B., Martinelli, M. K., Tiedemann, A. N., Koch, C. A., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2017). Novel automated morphometric and kinematic
handwriting assessment: A validity study in children with ASD and ADHD. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 10(2), 185–201. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2017.1304841.
*Dockrell, J. E., Ricketts, J., Charman, T., & Lindsay, G. (2014). Exploring writing products in students with language impairments and autism spectrum disorders.
1 * Indicates study included in the systematic review.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
25
Learning and Instruction, 32, 81–90. Elliott, C. D. (1990). DAS introductory and technical handbook. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Elliott, C. D., Smith, P., & McCulloch, K. (1997). The British ability scales II. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson. *Estes, A., Rivera, V., Bryan, M., Cali, P., & Dawson, G. (2011). Discrepancies between academic achievement and intellectual ability in higher-functioning school-aged
children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(8), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1127-3. *Evmenova, A. S., Regan, K., Boykin, A., Good, K., Hughes, M., MacVittie, N., ... Chirinos, D. (2016). Emphasizing planning for essay writing with a computer-based
graphic organizer. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 170–191. Fayol, M., Alamargot, M. D., & Berninger, V. (2012). Translation of thought to written text while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, research, methods, tools, and
applications. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Finnegan, E., & Accardo, A. L. (2018). Written expression in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
48(3), 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3385-9. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15326985EP3501_5. Fleury, V. P., Hedges, S., Hume, K., Browder, D. M., Thompson, J. L., Fallin, K., ... Vaughn, S. (2014). Addressing the academic needs of adolescents with autism
spectrum disorder in secondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 35(2), 68–79. *Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Stinson, R. D. (2012). Cognitive and academic distinctions between gifted students with autism and Asperger syndrome. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 56(2), 77–89. *Fuentes, C. T., Mostofsky, S. H., & Bastian, A. J. (2009). Children with autism show specific handwriting impairments. Neurology, 73(19), 1532–1537. https://doi.org/
10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181c0d48c. *Fuentes, C. T., Mostofsky, S. H., & Bastian, A. J. (2010). Perceptual reasoning predicts handwriting impairments in adolescents with autism. Neurology, 75(20),
1825–1829. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181fd633d. *Grace, N., Enticott, P. G., Johnson, B. P., & Rinehart, N. J. (2017). Do handwriting difficulties correlate with core symptomatology, motor proficiency and attentional
behaviors? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 474, 1006–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-3019-7. *Grace, N., Rinehart, N. J., Enticott, P. G., & Johnson, B. P. (2017). Do children with ASD have difficulty handwriting under time pressure? Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 37, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2017.02.001. *Grace, N., Johnson, B. P., Rinehart, N. J., & Enticott, P. G. (2018). Are motor control and regulation problems part of the ASD motor profile? A handwriting study.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 43(7), 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2018.1504948. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander, & P. Winne (Eds.). Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–477). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Graham, S. (2018). A writer(s) within community model of writing. In C. Bazerman, A. Applebee, V. W. Berninger, D. Brandt, S. Graham, J. V. Jeffery, P. K. Matsuda, S.
Murphy, D. W. Rowe, M. Schleppegrell, & K. C. Wilcox (Eds.). The lifespan development of writing (pp. 272–325). Urbana, IL: National Council of English. Gresham, F. M., & Elliot, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system (SSRS). Circle Point, MN: American Guidance Service. *Griswold, D. E., Barnhill, G. P., Myles, B. S., Hagiwara, T., & Simpson, R. L. (2002). Asperger syndrome and academic achievement. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576020170020401. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written language: Examiner’s manual. Pro-Ed. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2016). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence-based practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624216. *Hauth, C., Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Regan, K. (2013). Can students with emotional and/or behavioral disabilities improve on planning and writing in the
content areas of civics and mathematics? Behavioral Disorders, 38(3), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291303800304. Hayes, J. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2014). Cognitive process in writing: A framework. In J. B. Arfé, J. E. Dockrell, & V. W. Berninger (Eds.). Writing development in children
with hearing loss, dyslexia or oral language problems: Implications for assessment and instruction (pp. 3–15). New York: Oxford University Press. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.). Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. *Henderson, S., & Green, D. (2001). Handwriting problems in children with Asperger syndrome. Handwriting Today, 2, 65–79. Henderson, S. E., Sugden, D. A., & Barnett, A. L. (2007). Movement assessment Battery for children (2nd ed.). London, UK: The Psychological Corporation. James, K. H., Jao, R. J., & Berninger, V. W. (2016). The development of multileveled writing systems of the brain: Brain lessons from writing instruction. In C. A.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research (pp. 194–207). (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. *Johnson, B. P., Papadopoulos, N., Fielding, J., Tonge, B., Phillips, J. G., & Rinehart, N. J. (2013). A quantitative comparison of handwriting in children with high-
functioning autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(12), 1638–1646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.09. 008.
*Johnson, B. P., Phillips, J. G., Papadopoulos, N., Fielding, J., Tonge, B., & Rinehart, N. J. (2013). Understanding macrographia in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(9), 2917–2926.
*Johnson, B. P., Phillips, J. G., Papadopoulos, N., Fielding, J., Tonge, B., & Rinehart, N. J. (2015). Do children with autism and Asperger’s disorder have difficulty controlling handwriting size? A kinematic evaluation. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 11, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.11.001.
Jones, C. R. G., Happé, F., Golden, H., Marsden, A. J. S., Tregay, J., Simonoff, E., ... Charman, T. (2009). Reading and arithmetic in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: Peaks and dips in attainment. Neuropsychology, 23(6), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016360.
Keen, D., Webster, A., & Ridley, G. (2016). How well are children with autism spectrum disorder doing academically at school? An overview of the literature. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 20(3), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361315580962.
Kim, S. H., Paul, R., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Lord, C. (2014). Language and communication in autism. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, S. J. Rogers, & K. A. Pelphrey (Eds.). Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders(4th ed.). New York: Oxford Press.
*Kim, S. H., Bal, V. H., & Lord, C. (2018). Longitudinal follow-up of academic achievement in children with autism from age 2 to 18. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12808.
Klinger, L. G., Mussey, J. L., & O’Kelley, S. (2018). Assessment of intellectual functioning in autism spectrum disorder. In S. Goldstein, & S. Ozonoff (Eds.). Assessment of autism spectrum disorder (pp. 215–262). (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kushki, A., Chau, T., & Anagnostou, E. (2011). Handwriting difficulties in children with autism spectrum disorders: A scoping review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(12), 1706–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1206-0.
MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (2015). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research (pp. 24–40). (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
*Mason, L. H., Kubina, R. M., Valasa, L. L., & Cramer, A. M. (2010). Evaluating effective writing instruction for adolescent students in an emotional and behavior support setting. Behavioral Disorders, 35(2), 140–156.
*Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2003a). Ability profiles in children with autism: Influence of age and IQ. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 7(1), 65–80.
*Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2003b). Analysis of WISC-III, Stanford-Binet: IV, and academic achievement test scores in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(3), 329–341.
*Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2006). Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning & Individual Differences, 16(2), 145–157.
*Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2007). Learning, attention, writing, and processing speed in typical children and children with ADHD, autism, anxiety, depression, and oppositional-defiant disorder. Child Neuropsychology, 13(6), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040601112773.
*Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2008). WISC-IV and WIAT-II profiles in children with high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(3), 428–439.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
26
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Lane, S. E. (2005). Diagnosing children’s writing disabilities: Different tests give different results. Perceptual and motor skills, 101(1), 72–78.
Mayes, S. D., Breaux, R. P., Calhoun, S. L., & Frye, S. S. (2017). High prevalence of dysgraphia in elementary through high school students with ADHD and autism. Journal of Attention Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054717720721.
McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Pub. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. *Mourgkasi, V., & Mavropoulou, S. (2018). Story composition, mental state language and self-regulated strategy instruction for writers with autism spectrum con-
ditions. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(1), 36–49. Mundy, P., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2012). Educational interventions for students with autism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Myhill, D., & Fisher, R. (2010). Editorial: Writing development: Cognitive, sociocultural, linguistic perspectives. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 1–3. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01428.x. *Myles, B. S., Huggins, A., Rome-Lake, M., Hagiwara, T., Barnhill, G. P., & Griswold, D. E. (2003). Written language profile of children and youth with Asperger
syndrome: From research to practice. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(4), 362–369. Neef, M. (2012). Translation in the context of theory writing system research. In M. Fayol, D. Alamargot, & V. W. Berninger (Eds.). Translation of thought to written text
while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, research methods, tools, and applications. New York: Psychology Press. Pennington, R. C., & Carpenter, M. (2019). Teaching written expression to students with autism spectrum disorder and complex communication needs. Topics in
Language Disorders, 39(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000181. Pennington, R. C., & Delano, M. E. (2012). Writing instruction for students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 27(3), 158–167. *Price, J. R., Lacey, E. A., Weaver, V. L., & Ogletree, B. T. (2017). An intervention strategy for teaching a student with ASD to write sentences in response to prompts.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(5), 449–464. *Rousseau, M. K., Krantz, P. J., Poulson, C. L., Kitson, M. E., & McClannahan, L. E. (1994). Sentence combining as a technique for increasing adjective use in writing by
students with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(94)90036-1. *Schneider, A. B., Codding, R. S., & Tryon, G. S. (2013). Comparing and combining accommodation and remediation interventions to improve the written-language
performance of children with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 28(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1088357613475811.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research(1st ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Shanahan, T. (2015). Relationships between reading and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research (pp. 194–207). (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Silliman, E. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2011). Cross-disciplinary dialogue about the nature of oral and written language problems in the context of developmental, academic, and phenotypic profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 31(1), 6–23.
Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (2016). Educating children and youth with autism: Strategies for effective practice (3rd ed.). Austin, Texas: PRO-ED. Sturm, J. M., Cali, K., Nelson, N. W., & Staskowski, M. (2012). The developmental writing scale: A new progress monitoring tool for beginning writers. Topics in
Language Disorders, 32(4), 297–318. Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2014). Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. The Psychological Corporation (1992). Wechsler individual achievement test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. The Psychological Corporation (2002). Wechsler individual achievement test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. *Troyb, E., Orinstein, A., Tyson, K., Helt, M., Eigsti, I.-M., Stevens, M., & Fein, D. (2014). Academic abilities in children and adolescents with a history of autism
spectrum disorders who have achieved optimal outcomes. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 18(3), 233–243. Wechsler, D. (1991). The Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. London: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children-fourth edition (WISC-IV) technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test-third edition (WIAT-III). London: The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence-second edition (WASI-II). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Whitby, P. J. S., & Mancil, G. R. (2009). Academic achievement profiles of children with high functioning autism and Asperger syndrome: A review of the literature.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(4), 551–560. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery revised. Chicago: Riverside. Zajic, M. C., & Asaro-Saddler, K. (2019). Issue editor foreword: Supporting writers across the autism spectrum. Topics in Language Disorders, 39(2), 123–127. https://
doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000182. *Zajic, M. C., McIntyre, N., Swain-Lerro, L., Novotny, S., Oswald, T., & Mundy, P. (2018). Attention and written expression in school-age, high-functioning children
with autism spectrum disorders. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 22(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316675121. Zajic, M. C., Dunn, M., & Berninger, V. W. (2019). Case studies comparing learning profiles and response to instruction in autism spectrum disorder and oral and
written language learning disability at transition to high school. Topics in Language Disorders, 39(2), 128–154. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000180. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.
M.C. Zajic and S.E. Wilson Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 70 (2020) 101471
27
- Writing research involving children with autism spectrum disorder without a co-occurring intellectual disability: A systematic review using a language domains and mediational systems framework
- Introduction
- Reviews of academic and writing abilities of children with ASD
- Writing development and associated language domains and mediational systems
- Current study
- Method
- Selection of studies and inclusion criteria
- Study quality and characteristics
- Language domains and mediational systems framework
- Results
- Study quality and inclusion of writing research and theory
- Language domains and mediational systems framework
- Writing (transcription)
- Descriptive
- Intervention
- Writing (translation/text generation)
- Descriptive
- Intervention
- Oral language, listening comprehension, and reading
- Descriptive
- Sensorimotor
- Descriptive
- Social, emotional, and motivational
- Descriptive
- Intervention
- Cognition
- Descriptive
- Intervention
- Attention/executive functions
- Descriptive
- Intervention
- Discussion
- Study characteristics
- Study quality
- Language domain and mediational system skills
- Transcription and translation/text generation skills: heterogeneous skills with few overlapping studies
- Language domains: neglected research areas
- Mediational systems: emerging evidence and mixed findings
- Relationship to previous reviews
- Implications
- Limitations and future research
- mk:H1_41
- Acknowledgements
- References1
