See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6314881

Expressive Writing Difficulties in Children Described as Exhibiting ADHD

Symptoms

Article  in  Journal of Learning Disabilities · June 2007

DOI: 10.1177/00222194070400030501 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

105 2,011

3 authors, including:

Anna Maria Re Cesare Cornoldi

Università degli Studi di Torino 329 PUBLICATIONS   11,970 CITATIONS   
45 PUBLICATIONS   791 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intervención en comprensión de textos desde una perspectiva multicomponencial View project

LD and teachers attitudes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cesare Cornoldi on 05 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Expressive Writing Difficulties in
Children Described as Exhibiting
ADHD Symptoms
Anna Maria Re, Martina Pedron, and Cesare Cornoldi

Abstract
Three groups of children of different ages who were considered by their teachers as showing symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) and matched controls were tested in a series of expressive writing tasks, derived from a standardized writing test. In
the first study, 24 sixth- and seventh-grade children with ADHD symptoms wrote a description of an image. The ADHD group’s ex-
pressive writing was worse than that of the control group and associated with a higher number of errors, mainly concerning accents and
geminates. The second study showed the generality of the effect by testing younger groups of children with ADHD symptoms and con-
trols with another description task where a verbal description was substituted for the picture stimulus. The third study extended the pre-
vious observations with another type of writing task, the request of writing a narrative text. In all the three studies, children with ADHD
symptoms scored lower than controls on four qualitative parameters (adequacy, structure, grammar, and lexicon), produced shorter texts,
and made more errors. These studies show that children with ADHD symptoms have school difficulties also in writing—both in spelling
and expression—and that these difficulties are extended to different tasks and ages.

N
umerous studies have shown ities (LD; Englert & Raphael, 1988; Gra- In the second study, Ross, Poide-
that children described by their ham & Harris, 1989; Graham, Harris, vant, and Miner (1995) assessed the
teachers as showing attention- MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1991; Mon- writing speed of 48 children with
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) tague, Graves, & Leavell, 1991; New- ADHD, from first to fifth grades, and
symptoms also present academic diffi- comer & Barenbaum, 1991), much less 48 controls matched for gender and
culties in a variety of fields. Until re- is known about the writing skills of schooling. The task consisted of writ-
cently, the emphasis has been on the children with ADHD. We found only ing, as rapidly as possible, the num-
more basic skills, such as reading (Bo- two studies that specifically examined bers from 0 to 9 and the student’s first
nafia, Newcorn, McKay, Koda, & Hal- writing skills in children with ADHD. name for 1 min. The results showed no
perin, 2000; Johnson, Altmaier, & Rich- One study focused on general writing difference between the two groups.
man, 1999; Pisecco, Baker, Silva, & skills, the other on speed of writing. In The pattern of these results suggests
Brooke, 2001; Swanson, Mink, & Bo- the first study, as part of a writing test, that children with ADHD write less be-
cian, 1999; Willcutt & Pennington, 2000) Resta and Eliot (1994) examined the cause they have difficulties in the text
and arithmetic (Benedetto-Nasho & performance of 32 students between 8 production process and not because of
Tannock, 1999; Shimabukuro, Prater, and 13 years old (Grill & Kirwin, 1989). fluency or writing speed problems.
Jenkins, & Edelen-Smith, 1999). Given The study included 21 boys with However, these data, coming from dif-
the planning and organizational diffi- ADHD and 11 matched controls, who ferent populations and different stud-
culties shown by children with ADHD, were required to write three essays ies, do not allow clear conclusions and
one would expect them to have equal about an expressive (about hands), a generalizations to be drawn. Further-
if not greater difficulties in skills re- creative (in response to a picture of more, these studies did not systemati-
quiring greater organization and con- a cat), and an instructive (the danger cally examine different aspects of ex-
trol, for example when having to com- of fire) topic. The results showed that pressive writing or spelling errors. Yet
pose a short essay. children with ADHD performed worse the study of different performance
Nonetheless, and in contrast with and were less productive, in that parameters in expressive writing may
the large literature on the writing prob- they wrote fewer words than control be important, because it could reveal
lems of children with learning disabil- children. specific peculiarities of children with

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 2007, PAGES 244–255
 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 2007 245

ADHD, like those that have emerged concerns a particular error type. A suc- ing tasks derived from the Batteria per
in other learning areas (e.g., problem cessful classification of writing errors la Valutazione della Scrittura e della Com-
solving; Marzocchi, Lucangeli, De is based on a basic model for learning petenza Ortografica nella Scuola dell’Ob-
Meo, Fini, & Cornoldi, 2002). Writing is to read and write (Frith, 1985) that pro- bligo (BVSCO; Battery for the Assessment
not a simple transcription of thoughts poses a series of learning stages, some of Writing Skills in 7- to 13-Year-Old
and concepts; it requires the involve- of which are associated with specific Children), devised by Tressoldi and
ment of a high degree of complex types of spelling errors. In the first Cornoldi (1991), which is the only stan-
cognitive procedures. For example, stage, called logographic, a child can dardized writing test available in Italy.
classical views of expressive writing only associate a particular graphic con- Because the BVSCO offers an overall
(Burnett & Kastman, 1997; Hayes & figuration with a certain concept. In view of expressive writing competen-
Flower, 1980) showed the importance the second stage, called alphabetic, a cies, the first goal of the present re-
of several processes, and in particular child discovers the concept of pho- search was to obtain a general descrip-
the planning phase of an essay, the pro- nemes and learns to associate every tion of the writing skills of children
duction of ideas, their organization, phoneme with its peculiar graphic sign with ADHD symptoms. Concerning
the transcription, and the final revi- pattern. In this stage, errors are of the the children’s writing abilities we fo-
sion. The planning problems of chil- phonological type, due to the incorrect cused on the four main aspects consid-
dren with ADHD have been docu- association between a grapheme and ered in the BVSCO (adequacy, struc-
mented in the literature (Barkley, 1995; the corresponding phoneme. In the ture, lexicon, and grammar) and on
Cornoldi, Barbieri, Gaiani, & Zocchi, third stage, called orthographic, a child some other indices as recommended
1999; Seidman, Biederman, Monu- learns that writing is governed by syn- by the BVSCO’s authors. Furthermore,
teaux, Doyle, & Faraone, 2001); it is tactic and orthographic rules and no the BVSCO also offered the opportu-
thus highly probable that these chil- longer works with phonemes but with nity of measuring writing speed and
dren also have difficulties in expres- syllables or other sublexical units, so accuracy. Concerning writing speed,
sive writing. For example, one could that the writing process becomes more we predicted that, as Ross et al. (1995)
predict that children with ADHD can rapid and correct. In the fourth stage, already found, children with ADHD
produce many ideas, but—given their children learn specific lexical entries symptoms would be as rapid as con-
organizational and planning difficul- and are able to read and write words trols. Concerning accuracy, on the con-
ties—they do poorly at writing a text that do not follow the phonological trary, we predicted that children with
that is adequate and well organized rules (e.g., typical writing errors in Ital- ADHD symptoms would show a poorer
(i.e., adequately matching the writing ian are represented by illegal fusions performance due to their spelling diffi-
requests both in terms of the quantity and separations). Finally, Tressoldi and culties (Kroese et al., 2000).
of expressed ideas and their organiza- Cornoldi (1991) described a fifth stage, The second goal of the study con-
tion). Thus, despite the fact that their requiring a lexicon-based refinement cerned spelling accuracy in expressive
expression difficulty should mainly of lexical and phonological analysis, in writing. In particular, and following
concern the organization of ideas, the which the main difficulties are repre- the indication of the BVSCO manual,
poorer text organization and planning sented by the correct use of last sylla- we considered three types of errors:
of children with ADHD could also have ble accents and geminates. Evidence phonological, nonphonological, and a
the consequence of limiting the num- for a specific writing disorder and a third type (geminates and accents; see
ber of ideas actually being expressed. consequent autonomous representa- Note 2). Because these types of errors
Another problem in text produc- tion of geminates in Italian has also reflect different stages in learning to
tion concerns spelling: Children with been reported by Miceli, Benvegnù, write correctly, we expected that the
ADHD could be less capable of simul- Capasso, and Caramazza (1995). At lower competence of older children
taneously paying attention to their this stage, the selection of phonemes would show itself in the form of third-
ideas and to spelling and, therefore, and graphemes may be appropriate, type errors, whereas for younger chil-
make more mistakes. In fact, the pres- but may miss the details regarding dren who were still involved in the
ence of a larger number of spelling er- longer phoneme duration (which in preceding learning stages, the differ-
rors in the written text of children with Italian requires the writing of double ences would be found at earlier levels
ADHD can also be predicted on the letters: e.g., correre, to run) or of an ac- (Tressoldi & Cornoldi, 1991).
basis of their frequently observed read- cent (which in the Italian writing sys- In the present research, three dif-
ing and phonological difficulties (e.g., tem is required only when the accent is ferent studies examined these issues
Kroese, Hynd, Knight, Hiemenz, & on the last syllable). with their specific associated goals. In
Hall, 2000). Nevertheless, it is not clear The present research examined the first study, sixth- and seventh-
whether a hypothesized spelling diffi- the performance of children who were grade children with ADHD symptoms
culty in children with ADHD equally described by their teachers as showing and matched controls were engaged in
extends to any type of error or mainly ADHD symptoms (see Note 1) on writ- an expressive writing task, in which
246 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

they had to describe an image, and in children came from families with Ital- possible choices to continue the series:
a speed writing task, in which they had ian as their first language. a b c f g h. The Italian norms of the test
to write as many numbers in letters as The SDAI includes 18 items, based include a transformation table, which
possible in one minute. The second on the 18 ADHD symptoms listed in permits the translation of the raw
study investigated the generality of the the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and scores into IQ scores. All children in-
effect and its developmental pattern by Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders cluded in the study scored above the
testing younger groups of children (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Asso- 40th percentile on the PMA Reasoning
with ADHD symptoms and controls, ciation, 1994), and has been validated task, roughly corresponding to an IQ
using the same task as in Study 1 and and standardized for the Italian popu- higher than the 95th percentile. Finally,
another task in which the picture was lation, showing very high validity, reli- children with ADHD symptoms scored
replaced by a verbal description. In ability (r = .81), and interrater agree- below the 30th percentile in an atten-
fact, it has been suggested that not only ment (r = .78; Marzocchi & Cornoldi, tional visual search task, the Contin-
images, but also verbal prompts can 2000). The scale includes two sub- uous Performance (CP) task (Cornoldi,
improve the quality of expressive writ- scales, one for Inattention and the Gardinale, Masi, & Pettenò, 1996), which
ing (Marchisan & Alber, 2001). Finally, other for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity. requires finding a sequence of three
the third study examined the general Teachers have to observe the children’s letters (F Z B) presented 54 times
writing skills with respect to another behavior and report the frequency of within three random arrays of letters.
type of writing request, by asking chil- symptomatic behaviors described for
dren to write a narrative text. each item. Scores range from 0 (when
Procedure
the problematic behavior is never pres-
ent) to 3 (for very frequent behavior). Children were administered the De-
STUDY 1 Children whose mean score was above scription test from the BVSCO (Tres-
1.5 per item on one of the two subscales soldi & Cornoldi, 1991) in their class-
Study 1 examined the expressive writ- were considered for inclusion in the room. This task is based on the
ing, spelling, and writing speed abili- group of children with ADHD symp- presentation of a colored figure show-
ties of a group of children described by toms (selected children were mainly of ing people at the zoo, with a variety of
their teachers as exhibiting ADHD the inattentive or combined DSM-IV animals in their surroundings. Chil-
symptoms and of a matched control subtypes), and those who did not meet dren receive a copy of the figure and a
group. this criterion were considered for in- response sheet corresponding to the
clusion in the control group. type of paper on which they are used
Teachers were also asked to rate to writing. They have 10 min to write a
socioeconomic status (SES) and oppo- text on the basis of the following in-
Method
sitional and aggressive behavior. In the struction: “Imagine that you have been
group with children showing ADHD at the zoo and you have to describe the
Participants
symptoms, we included only children scene you see in the picture to some
Two groups of sixth- and seventh- who did not manifest oppositional and friends who were not there.” As a con-
grade children were selected: 24 chil- aggressive behavior. Control children trol, children were administered a
dren (17 boys and 7 girls) described by were selected from the same classes as writing speed subtest taken from the
their teachers as exhibiting ADHD the children with ADHD symptoms, so same BVSCO. This test requires writ-
symptoms, and a comparison group of as to be matched for gender, age, ing, in letters, as many numbers as pos-
24 children (17 boys and 7 girls; control schooling, estimated IQ, rated ability, sible in 1 min, starting from uno (one)
children) of the same age and school- and SES. The IQ estimation was ob- and proceeding with the subsequent
ing. Participants were selected from tained by administering part of the Pri- numbers of the number series. There
public schools in the Catania area of mary Mental Abilities Battery 11–17 was no significant difference between
Sicily, Italy, on the basis of the teacher’s (PMA) test. The PMA Reasoning sub- the two groups’ performance on this
rating scale, Scala per i Disturbi di scale is part of the classical battery de- task.
Attenzione/Iperattività per Insegnanti vised by Thurstone and Thurstone
(SDAI; ADHD Rating Scale for Teachers; (1963/1981) on the basic components
Marzocchi & Cornoldi, 2000, which of intelligence, which is still in use in Results
was used to assess 817 children. The Italy, and requires finding, within 6
schools were located in the environs of minutes, the logical criterion in a se- Children were able to understand the
the city of Catania, which are predom- quence of letters (30 items). For exam- instructions and meet task requests.
inantly inhabited by White families ple, the first item presents the letter se- The available time of 10 min was suffi-
working in the public sector or en- ries a a b c c d e e f g g, and requires that cient for all children, and many chil-
gaged in agricultural activities. All the child select between the following dren in both groups finished with a
 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 2007 247

few minutes to spare. Because children toms wrote significantly less, on aver- 7% (ADHD, M = 7.88, SD = 6.48, range =
were instructed to keep the response age, than controls. In the group with 0–24.24; control, M = 1.66, SD = 2.45,
sheet until the end of the available children showing ADHD symptoms, range = 0–9.38).
time, so they could check over their an- the mean length of the text was 51.79 When we considered the three
swers, it was not possible to record the words (SD = 21; 95% CI = 42.92–60.66), different types of errors separately, we
actual time used by each child to com- with a range between 20 and 90. In the could see that many children were per-
plete the task. The protocols were ana- control group, the mean length of the fectly accurate in one or more cate-
lyzed for the properties of expressive text was 68.21 words (SD = 32.96; 95% gories. For this reason, we decided to
writing, following the procedure de- CI = 54.29–82.12), with a range between divide children into two categories ac-
scribed in the test manual. First, two 32 and 143. A t-test comparison be- cording to whether they had made one
independent raters, blind with respect tween group means showed a signifi- or more errors of a particular type or
to the goals of the study, rated the pro- cant difference, t(46) = 2.06, p < .05. no such errors. We made this division
tocols for the following four qualitative Furthermore, we computed the for the three types of error. The results
parameters: percentage of errors distinguished ac- showed that the two groups were sig-
cording to the manual classification: nificantly different only for the third
1. adequacy, defined as the adequacy phonological errors (PhE), where the type of error (see Figure 1), whereas
of the written text with respect to reading of the written word would the differences between groups were
the task request; have a different phonology than the slight both for PhE (62.5% of ADHD
2. structure, based on the organization real word; nonphonological errors and 41.7% of controls made errors),
of the text; (NphE), with the same sound for the χ2(1, N = 48) = 2.09, p > .05, and for
3. grammar, concerning the correct written word and the real word; and NPhE (29.2% ADHD vs. 12.5% con-
use of punctuation, subdivision in third-type errors. In the last category, trol), χ2(1, N = 48) = 2.02, p > .05. In con-
paragraphs, correct use of verb the test manual includes errors where trast, there was a highly significant dif-
tenses, and correct concordance the sequence of written letters corre- ference in the third error type, which
between gender and number of sponds to the correct sequence, but was present for 87.5% of children with
nouns, verbs, and adjectives (very some subtle phonological markers of ADHD and only 29.2% of controls,
important in Italian); and the Italian writing system are lost (i.e., χ2(1, N = 48) = 16.8, p < .001.
4. lexicon, defined as the quantity of geminates and accents; e.g., girafa for
different words used. giraffa, citta for città).
Discussion
Because the length of the essay
The agreement of the two raters was different for each participant, we Study 1 confirmed that children with
was high for each of the four parame- computed the percentages of the three ADHD symptoms, despite showing an
ters (i.e., adequacy, r = .89; structure, types of errors with respect to the total adequate standard of general abilities,
r = .84; lexicon, r = .83; and grammar, number of written words. We found presented expressive writing difficul-
r = .78). Therefore, in the subsequent that large groups of children had a ties. Their problems were rather gen-
analyses, we only considered the rat- very low percentage of errors, suggest- eral, as they concerned all the mea-
ings given by the first rater. ing that a control for the normality of sured aspects. Children with ADHD
Children with ADHD symptoms the distribution and the use of non- symptoms were rated as less proficient
obtained significantly lower scores parametric tests would be appropriate. writers on all four basic parameters
than controls on adequacy (ADHD, In fact, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, (adequacy, structure, lexicon, and gram-
M = 2.62, SD = 0.78; controls, M = 3.92, a statistical test for the evaluation of mar). They produced shorter texts and
SD = 0.87, t(46) = 5.41, p < .01), struc- distribution normality, showed that made a higher percentage of errors.
ture (ADHD, M = 2.25, SD = 0.99; con- the distributions deviated significantly These difficulties were not related to
trols, M = 3.04, SD = 0.99, t(46) = 2.76, from the normal distribution for all writing speed, because the two groups
p < .01), lexicon (ADHD, M = 1.92, types of error (p < .05), so we used non- did not differ on this measure. How-
SD = 0.93; controls, M = 3.29, SD = 1.30, parametric tests. First, we compared ever, in some aspects of expressive
t(46) = 4.21, p < .01), and grammar the two groups on the overall percent- writing, the differences appeared
(ADHD, M = 1.83, SD = 0.82; controls, age of errors with the nonparametric stronger. In particular, the difference in
M = 3.12, SD = 1.11, t(46) = 4.58, p < .01). Mann-Whitney U test and found a the adequacy parameter was very con-
In other words, children with ADHD significant difference between groups, spicuous. Furthermore, the pattern of
symptoms obtained lower scores than U = 97.50, p < .001. In fact, the group errors mainly involved errors that re-
controls on all qualitative parameters. with children showing ADHD symp- quire a sophisticated use of both pho-
We also computed the quantity of toms made more than four times more nological and nonphonological indices.
words written by every child, and we errors than the control group, with a One problem in this study was re-
found that children with ADHD symp- mean percentage of errors higher than lated to the fact that we did not have a
248 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

group comprised children described

by their teachers as exhibiting ADHD
symptoms, and a control group was
matched for gender, age, and school-
ing. In total, groups consisted of 46 sec-
ond graders (33 boys and 13 girls), 40
third graders (32 boys and 8 girls), 44
fourth graders (36 boys and 8 girls) and
33 fifth graders (29 boys and 4 girls).
Participants were selected from public
schools located in northeastern Italy
and mainly came from White families
working in agriculture, public employ-
ment, and industry. The teacher rating
scale (SDAI), already described in the
preceding study, was used for assess-
ing 1,468 children. Also in this case,
children whose mean score was above
FIGURE 1. Study 1: Percentages of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis- 1.5 per item on one of the two subscales
order (ADHD) and control children who made errors on the Description test. *p < were considered for inclusion in the
.001. PhE = phonological errors; NPhE = nonphonological errors; 3rd Type = errors
group with children showing ADHD
on geminates and last syllable accents.
symptoms, and those who did not
meet this criterion were considered for
measure of the linguistic (including of a short text could facilitate the pro- inclusion in the control group. Teach-
reading) ability of the participants, and duction process. For these reasons, in a ers were interviewed to have con-
a particularly low linguistic ability of second study, we tested children of dif- firmation concerning the presence of
children with ADHD symptoms could ferent grades and compared the stan- ADHD symptoms and were also asked
have affected their writing perfor- dard procedure used in Study 1 with a to rate on a 0 to 3 rating scale the pres-
mance. Another problem concerned the different procedure in which the pic- ence of general cognitive difficulties,
generalizability of the results obtained. ture was substituted with a verbal scaf- linguistic and mathematics learning
In particular, evidence concerning chil- folding description. Children were difficulties, problems in the social skills
dren in primary school was also needed presented with the same description domain, oppositional and aggressive
to examine the presence of difficulties request used in Study 1, but one of the behavior, anxiety problems, and de-
at earlier phases of the writing skill ac- tasks was based on the standard pre- pressive behavior (children with these
quisition process. Furthermore, the dif- sentation of the picture, whereas the kinds of problems were excluded from
ficulties of children with ADHD symp- other task was based on a verbal both control and experimental groups).
toms could be strictly related to the description. Control children were also matched for
procedure adopted in the task, which estimated IQ, rated ability, and SES.
was based on the presentation of a pic- The IQ estimation was obtained by ad-
ture (see the procedure also adopted STUDY 2 ministering part of the PMA 2–4 and
by Grill & Kirwin, 1989). Effects could 4–6 Spatial Reasoning subscale (Thur-
be different if a verbal scaffold rather Study 2 examined whether children stone & Thurstone, 1963/1981), which
than a picture were presented and chil- with ADHD symptoms who attended requires finding, in 6 minutes, among
dren were given verbal cues to start different grades of primary school four different alternatives, the figure
their description. In fact, it has been scored lower in expressive writing and that—combined with the given model—
suggested that expressive writing can spelling, and whether this was the case can produce a square. The control group
be improved on the basis of a prompt also when their productions were and the group with children showing
represented by a sufficiently large prompted by a detailed verbal prompt. ADHD symptoms were not signifi-
quantity of verbal material (Marchisan cantly different in their estimated
& Alber, 2001). An advantage of the cognitive abilities (M = .30 for both
verbal scaffold could be especially Method groups), language abilities (M = .53 for
present in children with ADHD symp- the ADHD group and M = .40 for the
Participants
toms who have difficulties in autono- control group), and IQ, which, due to
mously initiating and controlling cog- Two groups consisting of a total of 163 the overestimation in the Italian PMA
nitive activities. In fact, the availability children participated in the study. One norms, was particularly high in both
 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 2007 249

groups: 118.35 (SD = 16.35) in the Stimulus modality (verbal scaf- significant difference between the two
group of children with ADHD symp- fold vs. picture) and order of presenta- tasks, but we found differences between
toms and 119.30 (SD = 13.50) in the tion of the situation (zoo with monkeys the two groups on all aspects: ade-
control group. On the other hand, the vs. zoo with parrots) were counterbal- quacy: F(1, 324 = 261.50, MSE = 307.10,
two groups were significantly different anced across participants. In all other p < .001, partial η2 = .447; structure:
(p < .01) on estimated mathematical respects, the procedure was the same F(1324) = 213.18, MSE = 290.47, p <
abilities (.80 vs. .45) as in Study 1. .001, partial η2 = .397; lexicon: F(1324) =
239.52, MSE = 220.48, p < .001, partial
η2 = .425; and grammar: F(1324) =
Tasks Results 249.17, MSE = 209.35, p < .001, partial
All children were administered two ex- A preliminary analysis examined η2 = .435. Means and standard devia-
pressive writing tasks (i.e., two De- whether grade level affected the two tions of Description task scores with an
scription tasks) in their classroom. All groups in different ways. However, no image and with verbal scaffolding for
the tasks were derived from the stan- significant interaction was found be- both ADHD and groups are detailed in
dardized writing battery devised by tween grades and groups. Therefore, Table 1.
Tressoldi and Cornoldi (1991). The we will present the overall pattern of We also carried out a 2 × 2 (Group ×
writing tasks were based on the pre- results, distinguishing only between Task) ANOVA to compare the length of
sentation of one of two colored figures groups (children with ADHD symp- the descriptions and found a signifi-
appropriate for the child’s grade and toms and controls) and types of tasks. cant difference between groups (ADHD:
one of the corresponding verbal illus- For the analysis of the children’s M = 52.13, SD = 1.55, 95% CI = 49.09–
trations. Figures and verbal illustra- production, we followed the proce- 55.18; control: M = 67.97, SD = 1.55,
tions concerned the zoo scenario al- dure described in the BVSCO manual. 95% CI = 64.92–71.01; F(1, 324) = 52.33,
ready proposed in the preceding study, The qualitative judgment was made by MSE = 780.88, p < .001, partial η2 = .139,
and the picture task was also the same two blind and independent raters. The but no significant difference between
as in Study 1, but all children were also interrater agreement was high for each the two conditions. As can be seen
presented with another description parameter in both tasks (i.e., for the from Table 2, there was no difference in
task using another stimulus modality, Description task with the picture: ade- the number of words used to write the
namely, a verbal scaffold rather than a quacy, r = .96; structure, r = .92; lexicon, description of an image alone or with
picture. The verbal scaffold included r = .88, and grammar, r = .91; and for the aid of a verbal scaffold. That is,
the main elements present in the pic- the Description task with verbal scaf- children with ADHD symptoms and
ture; for example, for one of the pic- fold: adequacy, r = .96; structure, r = controls wrote on average a similar
tures, it included the following: “Try to .90; lexicon, r = .90; and grammar, r = number of words in the two tasks, but
imagine that you and another child .94). Therefore, in successive analyses, in general, as in Study 1, the children
have been to visit the zoo, where there we only considered the ratings given with ADHD symptoms wrote fewer
were a lot of people and animals. At by the first rater. words than the control group.
one point you stopped in front of a Four 2 × 2 (Group × Task [verbal Following the suggestion of Tres-
cage in which there were many parrots vs. picture]) ANOVAs were run for the soldi and Cornoldi (1991), we carried
of different colors.” different parameters. We did not find a out further analyses on the protocols,

TABLE 1
Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations on Four Basic Parameters of Expressive Writing in
Two Conditions for ADHD and Control Groups
ADHD groupa Control groupa

Image condition Scaffold condition Image condition Scaffold condition

Parameter M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI

Adequacy 2.87 0.84 2.73–3.00 2.98 0.91 2.84–3.12 4.15 0.65 4.05–4.25 4.16 0.66 4.06–4.26
Structure 2.77 0.70 2.67–2.88 2.82 0.68 2.72–2.93 3.88 0.81 3.75–4.00 3.88 0.79 3.76–4.01
Lexicon 2.39 0.66 2.29–2.49 2.39 0.58 2.30–2.48 3.40 0.66 3.30–3.50 3.39 0.75 3.27–3.50
Grammar 2.34 0.64 2.25–2.43 2.31 0.60 2.22–2.40 3.29 0.71 3.18–3.40 3.34 0.67 3.24–3.45

Note. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

an = 163.
250 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

concerning not only the text length, but In this case (see Table 3), the two ference between the two conditions in
also the percentage of qualitative ad- description tasks produced different the percentages of qualitative adjec-
jectives, the percentage of repetition outcomes. Wilcoxon tests—a nonpara- tives, z = 0.99, p > .05, and repetitions,
(both calculated on the first 50 words), metric test that enables the comparison z = 0.17, p > .05, but there was a signif-
and the percentage of subordinate of within-subject measures—showed icantly higher percentage of subordi-
clauses present. These indexes have that the children with ADHD symp- nate clauses in the picture task than in
been suggested (Tressoldi and Cor- toms showed a significantly lower per- the verbal scaffolding task, z = 2.11, p <
noldi, 1991) to be associated with good formance on all parameters. Further- .05. These results are shown in Table 3.
production, mainly reflecting the rich- more, they wrote significantly more In summary, the performance of
ness of the ideational process (in the qualitative adjectives in the condition children with ADHD symptoms was
case of text length), their organization with verbal scaffolding than in the con- poorer (used less adjectives and made
in the text (in the case of a high per- dition with the picture, Wilcoxon z = more repetitions) on the task with the
centage of subordinate clauses), a sat- 3.54, p < .001; they made more repeti- picture than on the task with the verbal
isfactory use of the lexicon (in the case tions in the condition with the image scaffolding. In contrast, control chil-
of a low percentage of word repeti- than in the other condition, z = 2.4, p < dren scored higher (used more subor-
tions), and an articulated and sophisti- .05; but the difference in the number of dinate clauses) in the condition with
cated transcription (in the case of a subordinate clauses only approached images than in the verbal scaffolding
high percentage of qualifying adjec- significance, z = 1.9, p = .05. In contrast, condition. Furthermore, comparing
tives). for the control group, there was no dif- the two groups on these parameters,
we found that children with ADHD
symptoms used less qualitative adjec-
tives, made more repetitions, and
TABLE 2 wrote less subordinate clauses than
Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Description Text Lengths in
control children, both in the task with
Two Conditions for ADHD and Control Groups
an image and in the task with verbal
ADHD groupa Control groupa scaffolding (see Table 3).
Condition M range SD M Range SD The lower performance of the
group with children showing ADHD
Description with image 51.89 18–104 19.63 68.82 33–132 21.66 symptoms was also evident from the
total number of spelling errors; here
Description with verbal scaffolding 52.38 18–121 18.90 67.12 28–131 22.28
there was no significant difference be-
Note. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. tween the two tasks. Also in this study,
an = 163. when we considered the three different

TABLE 3
Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations of Percentages of Adjectives, Repetitions, and Subordinate
Clauses for ADHD and Control Groups
Adjectives Repetitions Subordinates

Group M Range SD M Range SD M Range SD

Image condition
ADHDa 2.9 0–9 2.3 7.4 0–27 4.0 29.44 0–133 27.86
Controla 6.6 1–18 3.5 2.7 0–12 2.5 46.70 0 –125 25.21
Mann-Whitney U 5248.5* 3754.5* 8692.5*

Verbal scaffolding condition

ADHDa 3.4 0–13 2.7 6.6 0–29 3.3 27.95 0–133 28.43
Controla 6.7 0–16 3.7 2.8 0–11 2.4 44.26 0–125 22.65
Mann-Whitney U 6529.5* 4139.0* 8568.0*

Note. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

an = 163.

*p < .001.
 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 2007 251

types of errors separately, we could see However, their impaired writing profi- is valid both for children with ADHD
that many children’s performances ciency could be affected by a more spe- symptoms and for controls. Children
were accurate in one or more cate- cific linguistic deficit. The deficit could with ADHD symptoms performed
gories. For this reason, we again di- also be related to a more general scho- lower than controls on all parameters,
vided children into two categories ac- lastic difficulty, as suggested by their they made a higher percentage of er-
cording to whether they had made one lack of high performance in math (as rors, and they produced shorter texts.
or more errors or none. reported by their teachers). The find- However, the presence of a very simple
As can be seen in Figure 2, chil- ing that—in contrast to the preceding verbal scaffold slightly reduced their
dren with ADHD symptoms made study—control children also made a performance difficulties, improving the
more errors than control children both considerable number of errors of the quality of their texts by increasing
in the condition with images (ADHD: third type can be explained by consid- the number of adjectives and reducing
M = 3.6, SD = 2.6, range = 0–13; con- ering the young age of the children in the number of repetitions. It is also im-
trols: M = 1.6, SD = 1.5, range = 0–7, this study, at a stage in which they are portant to note that the only difference
Mann-Whitney U = 6,800, p < .001) and still involved in learning to manage between the two conditions (with pic-
in the condition with verbal scaffold- subtle spelling skills. ture or with verbal instructions) for
ing (ADHD: M = 3.7, SD = 2.5, range = This study examined the writing controls was a very slight improve-
0–14; controls: M = 1.7, SD = 1.6, range = difficulties encountered by children ment in the percentage of subordinate
0–9, Mann-Whitney U = 6,178, p < .001). with ADHD symptoms and tested clauses in the picture condition.
In particular, in the condition with im- whether producing a written descrip-
ages, 22.7% of children with ADHD tion of a scene aided by a verbal scaf-
symptoms versus 13.5% of control chil- fold could be simpler than with the aid
dren made PhE, χ2(1, N = 326) = 11.95, of an image alone, by offering a verbal
STUDY 3
p = .001; 36.2% of children with ADHD structure to be used for planning and
symptoms versus 23.9% of control chil- producing a verbal text. In general, The difficulties encountered by chil-
dren made NPhE, χ2(1, N = 326) = children showed a similar pattern of dren with ADHD symptoms could
20.47, p < .001; and 39.9% of children difficulties on both tasks. Results have been emphasized by the particu-
with ADHD symptoms versus 30.1% showed that the availability of a verbal lar type of expressive task set. In fact,
of controls made third-type errors, scaffold during a writing task does not it has been shown (e.g., Ellis, Taylor, &
χ2(1, N = 326) = 14.94, p < .001. A simi- represent a strong help for a child en- Drury, 2005; Graham, Harris, & Mason,
lar result could be observed in the ver- gaged in a writing task, and this result 2005; Segev-Miller, 2004) that expres-
bal scaffolding condition: 22.2% of chil-
dren with ADHD symptoms versus
11.4% of controls made PhE, χ2 (1, N =
326) = 17.24, p < .001; 35% of children
with ADHD symptoms versus 24.8% of
controls made NPhE, χ2(1, N = 326) =
13.90, p < .001; and 43.4% of children
with ADHD symptoms versus 32.3%
of controls made third-type errors,
χ2(1, N = 326) = 20.77, p < .001.

Discussion
Study 2 confirms the results of the pre-
ceding one: Children with ADHD symp-
toms present writing difficulties. In
particular, children with ADHD symp-
toms are rated as less proficient writ-
ers, make more errors, and write
shorter texts than controls. These er-
FIGURE 2. Study 2: Percentages of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
rors cannot be due to a general lin- disorder (ADHD) and control children who made errors on the Description task con-
guistic disability in the children with dition with image and on the condition with verbal scaffolding. PhE = phonological
ADHD symptoms because the two errors; NPhE = nonphonological errors; 3rd = third-type errors on geminates and
groups were matched on this aspect. last syllable accents.
252 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

sive writing is largely dependent on toon 3). All children had 10 min to used less qualitative adjectives (ADHD:
the type of writing task required. As write their text. M = 3.2, SD = 2.8, range = 0–11; con-
the BVSCO standardized test battery trols: M = 6.3, SD = 4, range = 0–15,
for Italy includes another writing task Mann-Whitney U = 7,300.5, p < .001),
(i.e., a narrative one), we further tested Results made more repetitions (ADHD: M =
children with ADHD symptoms on 9.8, SD = 4.6, range = 0–22; controls:
their expressive writing skills by pre- As for the other studies, we followed M = 3.9, SD = 3.6, range = 0–16, Mann-
senting this task. Thus, the same chil- the BVSCO manual’s procedure. First, Whitney U = 4,193.5, p < .001), and wrote
dren examined in the preceding study two independent and blind raters eval- fewer subordinate clauses (ADHD: M =
were invited to write a narrative text uated the protocols. The correlations 26.28, SD = 25.11, range = 0–133; con-
based on the presentation of a series of between the two raters’ assessments of trols: M = 44.7, SD = 23.84, range =
images describing a short story. the qualitative parameters for the nar- 0–150, Mann-Whitney U = 7,510.5, p <
rative task were very high for ade- .001) than control children (see Fig-
quacy (r = .95, p < .001), structure (r = ure 3). Furthermore, children with
Method .91, p < .01), lexicon (r = .85, p < .001), ADHD made significantly more errors
and grammar (r = .81, p < .001). For this than controls (ADHD: M = 3.4, SD =
Participants were the same as in Study 2, reason, we decided also in this case to 2.01, range = 0–11; controls: M = 1.7,
and the procedure was the same as in consider the evaluations of the first SD = 1.3, range = 0–7, Mann-Whitney
Study 1, with the presentation of picto- rater only. U = 6,177, p < .001). Comparing the two
rial material and the request to pro- The performance of children groups on the different types of errors,
duce a written text. However, rather showing ADHD symptoms was signif- we divided children into two groups
than being presented with a single icantly lower on all qualitative para- according to whether they had made
image, children were presented with a meters compared to the control group, one or more errors or none. The results
series of pictures forming a short story. as shown in Table 4. We compared the showed that 19.3% of children with
The pictorial material for the writing two groups on the number of words ADHD symptoms made phonological
test (Tressoldi & Cornoldi, 1991) for written, and we found, again, that the errors versus 12.6% of controls, χ2(1,
second and third graders consisted of children with ADHD symptoms wrote N = 326) = 6.83, p = .009; that 36.4% of
three cartoons depicting the story of a fewer words than the control group. In children with ADHD symptoms made
child and his dog. For fourth and fifth fact, the children with ADHD symp- nonphonological errors versus 24.4%
graders, it included five cartoons de- toms wrote on average 50.77 words of controls, χ2(1, N = 326) = 18.49, p <
picting the story of a child falling off a (SD = 14.75, range = 21–99), whereas .001; and that 40.6% of children with
tree. To give a more complete exam- the control group wrote 64.32 words ADHD symptoms made third-type er-
ple, the cartoons for younger children (SD = 17.78, range = 27–118), a differ- rors versus 36.3% of controls, χ2(1, N =
showed the story of a child who first ence found to be significant, t(324) = 326) = 3.03, p > .05.
plays with his dog (Cartoon 1), then 7.49, p < .01. As can be seen in Figure 4, chil-
goes to school with the dog (Cartoon 2) When we considered the first 50 dren with ADHD symptoms always
and leaves the dog waiting for him text words for all children, we found made more errors than controls, but
outside while he stays in school (Car- that children with ADHD symptoms there was no relevant difference be-
tween the two groups on third-type
errors. A final analysis comparing the
different types of errors showed that in
TABLE 4
Study 3: Means and Standard Deviations on Four Basic Parameters of Narrative both groups, phonological errors were
Writing for ADHD and Control Groups less frequent than nonphonological er-
rors (ADHD: PhE = 38.7% vs. NPhE =
ADHD groupa Control groupa 72.4%, McNemar’s p < .001; control:
Parameter M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI t (324) PhE = 24.8% vs. NPhE = 49.1%, McNe-
mar’s p < .001) and nonphonological
Adequacy 3.23 1.01 3.08–3.39 4.36 0.70 4.25–4.47 11.67* errors were less frequent than third-
Structure 2.34 0.60 2.24–2.43 3.24 0.64 3.14–3.34 13.05* type errors for the control group
(NPhE = 49.1% vs. 3rd type = 73.3%,
Grammar 2.42 0.62 2.32–2.51 3.38 0.73 3.27–3.49 12.86*
McNemar’s p < .001) but not for chil-
Lexicon 2.92 0.73 2.80–3.02 4.01 0.74 3.89–4.12 13.59* dren with ADHD symptoms; in fact,
for ADHD, NPhE were not signifi-
Note. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
an = 163. cantly less frequent than third-type er-
*p < .001. rors (NPhE = 72.4% vs. 3rd type = 81%,
 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 2007 253

McNemar’s p > .05). Finally, children in

both groups made numerous errors of
the third type.

Discussion
The same patterns of performance ob-
served in the preceding studies with
the Description tasks were also found
in the Narrative task: Children with
ADHD symptoms always made more
errors than control children, wrote
shorter texts, and were judged to be
poorer writers than controls. This re-
sult shows that the writing difficulties
of children with ADHD symptoms do FIGURE 3. Study 3: Mean writing performance of children with attention-deficit/
not depend on the type of writing task hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and control children on adjectives, repetitions, and
or on the type of instructions given. In subordinate clauses on the Narrative test. Error bars represent 1 SD. *p < .001.
all the present studies, and in all con-
ditions, children with ADHD symp-
toms always wrote less proficiently
and produced shorter texts than the
control children.
In this third study, we found the
same pattern of specific problems for
the children with ADHD symptoms
that were found in the previous stud-
ies. The only difference was that on this
task, children with ADHD symptoms
and controls did not differ in the num-
ber of third-type errors made. In fact, a
relevant proportion of control children
also made this type of errors. It is thus
possible that the narrative task was
more difficult for both groups, sub-
tracting critical resources from paying
attention to spelling, so that all chil-
dren made third-type errors.
FIGURE 4. Study 3: Percentages of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-
order (ADHD) and control children who made errors on the Narrative test. *p <
GENERAL CONCLUSION .001; PhE = phonological errors; NPhE = nonphonological errors; 3rd = third-type
errors on geminates and last syllable accents.
The three studies presented here shed
light on the expressive writing skills of
children with ADHD symptoms—an parameters of the production). Thus, be associated with a reading difficulty
aspect of this disorder that has been our results show that the difficulties (see Frith, 1985), the relevant difficul-
rather understudied so far. The results that children with ADHD symptoms ties faced by children with ADHD
showed that the expressive writing face at school are not limited to the tra- symptoms in producing an adequate,
performance of children described by ditionally considered areas of reading well-organized text could be due to
their teachers as exhibiting ADHD (e.g., Pisecco et al., 2001) and mathe- their well-known planning and organi-
symptoms was always lower than the matics (e.g., Marzocchi et al., 2002), but zational difficulties (e.g., Barkley,
control group’s performance under all also concern different aspects of writ- 1995).
the considered aspects (number of er- ing. If an increase in spelling errors in Concerning spelling errors, de-
rors made, qualitative and objective children with ADHD symptoms may spite following the same developmen-
254 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

tal path described by the stage model causal links—an issue that cannot be of some of the results of these studies,
(Frith, 1985; Tressoldi & Cornoldi, resolved on the basis of the present for example the fact that ADHD chil-
1991), children with ADHD symptoms data. dren prefer verbal to pictorial prompts.
presented more of the three types of er- However, in the case of expres-
rors analyzed here (i.e., phonological, sive writing, a negative influence of
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
nonphonological, and third type, the ADHD on academic performance seems
latter involving last-syllable accents, clear. In fact, for children with ADHD Anna Maria Re, BA, is a PhD student in psy-
which in Italian must be reported, and symptoms, producing ideas, organiz- chology at the University of Padova, Italy. Her
geminates). This type of error later dis- ing concepts, and writing them down main interests include learning disabilities,
appears in all children, but is still pres- is hard work. For this reason, probably, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
ent in children with ADHD symptoms the children with ADHD symptoms in and children with ADHD, especially in pre-
who are attending secondary school. the present studies wrote less, orga- school years. Martina Pedron, BA, is a psy-
This evidence is consistent with a nized the text poorly, used a limited chologist with expertise in learning disabilities.
Currently she conducts assessment and treat-
model that outlines a number of stages vocabulary, and made more errors.
ment at the University of Padova. Cesare Cor-
in learning to write, starting from the Usually, their text was very simple and
noldi, PhD, is a full professor of general
acquisition of the ability to transcribe not well articulated—more similar to a psychology at the University of Padova. His re-
simple words (phonological errors), list of elements than to an organized search interests include human learning and
then more complex ones (nonphono- text. The adequacy and structure of the memory, cognitive processes in learning dis-
logical errors), and finally acquiring writing of children with ADHD symp- abilities, working memory, metacognition and
the rules regulating accents and gemi- toms was particularly poor, but also for learning, and mental imagery. Address: Anna
nates (third-type errors). The present lexicon and grammar, the differences M. Re, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale,
article focused on writing skills and, between children with ADHD symp- Universita degli studi di Padova, via Venezia,
unfortunately, no information was col- toms and controls were dramatically 8—35131, Padova, Italy; e-mail: annamaria
lected on the children’s reading abili- evident (Studies 1, 2, and 3). The poorer .re@unipd.it
ties—an issue that should be consid- lexicon of the children with ADHD
ered in future research in the area. For symptoms was also confirmed by the NOTES
the children tested in Studies 2 and 3, greater number of repetitions and the
we only had the teachers’ general rat- lower number of adjectives used (Stud- 1. In these studies, we used only the teachers’
ing on language abilities, which did ies 2 and 3). In this respect, the present ratings. It must be noted that in Italy, no
not produce significant differences research confirms that the inclusion of standard procedures are used for ADHD as-
sessment and diagnosis, and medication was
between the group of children with adjectives in a text is associated with
not permitted at the time of these studies.
ADHD symptoms and the control higher writing proficiency. The poor
However, teachers had a long-term familiar-
group. However, due to the typical dif- grammatical and syntactic qualities of ity with the children and knowledge about
ficulties that children with ADHD the texts produced by children with their behavior in different contexts. More-
symptoms encounter in reading (e.g., ADHD symptoms are also confirmed over, the identification of children with
Bonafia et al., 2000) and the interaction by the less complex syntactic structure ADHD symptoms was checked through suc-
between reading and spelling (Frith, demonstrated by the lower number of cessive informal interviews.
1985), one could predict that the chil- subordinate clauses (Studies 2 and 3). 2. The manual presents validation studies.
dren examined in the present studies There are a number of issues that Concerning the test’s psychometric proper-
should also present with reading diffi- remain to be investigated and clarified. ties, the manual only reports a mean test–
culties, and the latter should have an In particular, our observations should retest reliability of .57 for the classification
system of the three types of spelling errors.
influence on the observed spelling dif- be replicated in contexts using more
ficulties to produce in the child some standardized procedures for the di-
hesitations also in the expressive writ- agnosis of ADHD and its comorbid REFERENCES
ing context. In a similar vein, one could symptoms. However, we believe that a
have predicted that the reading diffi- priority in future research should be American Psychiatric Association. (1994).
culties observed in preceding studies given to the study of how to facilitate Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Au-
with children with ADHD symptoms the writing process of children with
thor.
could be at least partially affected by ADHD. Thus, we think that research-
Barkley, R. A. (1995). Taking charge of ADHD:
their spelling difficulties. The fact that ers in the field should investigate ways The complete, authoritative guide for parents.
both spelling and reading difficulties to train and help children with ADHD New York: Guilford Press.
can be found leaves open the question to write more proficiently and in ac- Benedetto-Nasho, B., & Tannock, R. (1999).
of the nature of their frequent comor- cordance with their age. Developments Math computation, error patterns and
bidity with ADHD and of the potential in this field could also take advantage stimulant effect in children with attention
 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 3, MAY/JUNE 2007 255

deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Grill, J. J., & Kirwin, M. M. (1989). Written abilities and/or ADHD: Distinctions in
Attention Disorders, 3, 121–134. language assessment manual. Novato, CA: early childhood. Journal of Learning Dis-
Bonafia, M. A., Newcorn, J. H., McKay, Academic Therapy. abilities, 34, 98–106.
K. E., Koda, V. H., & Halperin, J. M. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identi- Resta, P. S., & Eliot, J. (1994). Written ex-
(2000). ADHD and reading disabilities: A fying the organization of the writing pression in boys with attention deficit
cluster analytic approach for distinguish- process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Stein- disorder. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79,
ing subgroups. Journal of Learning Disabil- berg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing 1131–1138.
ities, 33, 297–307. (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ross, P. A., Poidevant, J. M., & Miner, C. U.
Burnett, R. E., & Kastman, L. M. (1997). Johnson, B. D., Altmaier, E. M., & Richman, (1995). Curriculum-based assessment of
Teaching composition: Current theories L. C. (1999). Attention deficits and read- writing fluency in children with attention
and practices. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Hand- ing disabilities: Are immediate memory deficit hyperactivity disorder and normal
book of academic learning (pp. 268–305). defects additive? Developmental Neuropsy- children. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
San Diego: Academic Press. chology, 15, 213–226. Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11, 201–
Cornoldi, C., Barbieri, A., Gaiani, C., & Zoc- Kroese, J. M., Hynd, G. W., Knight, D. F., 208.
chi, S. (1999). Strategic memory deficits in Hiemenz, J. R., & Hall, J. (2000). Clinical Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from
attention deficit disorder with hyperac- appraisal of spelling ability and its rela- source: The effect of explicit instruction
tivity participants: The role of executive tionship to phonemic awareness (blend- on college students’ process and prod-
processes. Developmental Neuropsychology, ing, segmenting, elision and reversal), ucts. L1–Educational Studies in Language
15, 53–71. phonological memory and reading in and Literature, 4, 5–33.
Cornoldi, C., Gardinale, M., Masi, A., & Pet- reading disabled, ADHD and normal Seidman, L. J., Biederman, J., Monuteaux,
tenò, L. (1996). Impulsività e autocontrollo children. Reading and Writing, 13, 105–131. M. C., Doyle, A. E., & Faraone, S. V. (2001).
[Impulsivity and self-control]. Trento, Marchisan, M. L., & Alber, S. R. (2001). The Learning disabilities and executive dys-
Italy: Erickson. write way: Tips for teaching the writing function in boys with attention deficit hy-
Ellis, R., Taylor, C. E., & Drury, H. (2005). process to resistant writers. Intervention in peractivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 15,
Evaluating writing instruction through School and Clinic, 36, 154–162. 544–556.
an investigation of students’ experiences Marzocchi, G. M., & Cornoldi, C. (2000). Shimabukuro, S. M., Prater, M. A., Jenkins,
of learning through writing. Instructional Una scala di facile uso per la rilevazione A., & Edelen-Smith, P. (1999). The effect
Science, 33, 49–71. dei comportamenti problematici dei bam- of self-monitoring of academic perfor-
Englert, C., & Raphael, T. (1988). Construct- bini con deficit di attenzione e iperattivita mance on students with learning disabil-
ing well-formed prose: Process, structure, [An easy-to-use scale for the description ities and ADD/ADHD. Education and
and metacognitive knowledge. Excep- of ADHD symptoms]. Psicologia Clinica Treatment of Children, 22, 397–424.
tional Children, 54, 513–520. dello Sviluppo, 4, 43–63. Swanson, H. L., Mink, J., & Bocian, K. M.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of sur- Marzocchi, G. M., Lucangeli, D., De Meo, (1999). Cognitive processing deficits in
face dyslexia. In J. C. Marshall, M. Colt- T., Fini, F., & Cornoldi, C. (2002). The dis- poor readers with symptoms of reading
heart, & K. Patterson (Eds.), Surface turbing effect of irrelevant information disabilities and ADHD: More alike than
dyslexia and surface dysgraphia (pp. 310– on arithmetic problem solving in inatten- different? Journal of Educational Psychol-
330). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. tive children. Developmental Neuropsychol- ogy, 91, 321–333.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1989). Compo- ogy, 21, 73–92. Thurstone, T. G., & Thurstone, L. L. (1963).
nents analysis of cognitive strategy in- Miceli, G., Benvegnù, B., Capasso, R., & Primary mental abilities. Chicago: Science
struction: Effect on learning disabled stu- Caramazza, A. (1995). Selective deficit in Research Associates. (Italian translation,
dents’ compositions and self-efficacy. processing double letters. Cortex, 31, 161– 1981)
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353– 171. Tressoldi, P. E., & Cornoldi, C. (1991). Batte-
361. Montague, M., Graves, A., & Leavell, A. ria per la valutazione della scrittura e della
Graham, S., Harris, K., MacArthur, C., & (1991). Planning, procedural facilitation, competenza ortografica nella scuola dell’ob-
Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and writing and narrative composition of junior high bligo [Battery for the assessment of writ-
instruction with students with learning students with learning disabilities. Learn- ing skills of children from 7 to 13 years
disabilities: A review of a program of re- ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 219– old]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Spe-
search. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 224. ciali.
89–114. Newcomer, P. L., & Barenbaum, E. M. Willcutt, E. G., & Pennington, B. F. (2000).
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Mason, L. (2005). (1991). The written composing ability of Comorbidity of reading disability and at-
Improving the writing performance, children with learning disabilities: A re- tention deficit hyperactivity disorder:
knowledge, and self-efficacy of strug- view of the literature from 1980 to 1990. Differences by gender and subtype. Jour-
gling young writers: The effects of self- Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 578–593. nal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 179–191.
regulated strategy development. Contem- Pisecco, S., Baker, D. B., Silva, P. A., &
porary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241. Brooke, M. (2001). Boys with reading dis-
View publication stats