The Cognitive Architecture of Written Expression Disorder: From Neural Mechanisms to Targeted Interventions

Written Expression Disorder (F81.81) creates a puzzling disconnect between a child's intellectual abilities and their writing performance. Between 5% and 20% of all children face this challenge [24] [24]. These young clients possess normal intelligence and receive adequate instruction, yet they cannot effectively translate their thoughts into written form. The struggle extends well beyond messy handwriting or occasional spelling mistakes.

The numbers tell a concerning story. Writing difficulties affect 10% to 30% of children, with boys experiencing these challenges more frequently than girls [12]. These statistics represent real children sitting in therapy sessions, struggling with assignments that should match their cognitive capabilities.

This condition rarely appears alone. Written expression disorder frequently accompanies autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [24]. Research shows that up to half of children with ADHD in the U.S. have some form of learning disorder [24]. The ripple effects continue into adulthood—vocational progress and daily activities remain compromised for many individuals [12].

Most concerning is how traditional writing support misses the mark. Generic interventions fail because they don't address the specific neural mechanisms driving each person's difficulties. Surface-level symptoms mask distinct neurocognitive subtypes that require precise intervention approaches.

The writing process involves intricate neural networks that few fully understand. Frontoparietal networks handle graphomotor planning while ventral pathways manage orthographic processing. Each network can malfunction independently, creating unique patterns of difficulty that demand equally unique solutions.

This article examines the neurocognitive processes underlying written expression disorder. You'll discover advanced differential diagnosis protocols that pinpoint specific deficits, evidence-based intervention hierarchies that target root causes, and practical strategies for implementing mechanism-focused approaches in your clinical practice.

Neurocognitive Subtypes and Triple Network Model in F81.81

Neuroimaging studies show that written expression disorder stems from distinct neural networks processing different aspects of writing. This knowledge enables more precise identification of neurocognitive subtypes and targeted interventions for your clients.

Graphomotor Planning via Dorsal Frontoparietal Network

The dorsal frontoparietal network (dFPN) serves as the primary neural foundation for graphomotor planning in writing. This network handles motor planning and imagery, mental rotation, spatial attention, and working memory [2]. Action emulation forms the core function—creating dynamic representations of abstract movement patterns essential for writing execution.

Neuroimaging research demonstrates that the dorsal premotor and posterior parietal cortices activate during motor planning, particularly during handwriting tasks [2]. These regions show increased responses when visual feedback doesn't match executed movements, suggesting adaptation of body representation during writing. This process frequently becomes impaired in F81.81.

Orthographic Processing in Ventral Occipitotemporal Pathway

Orthographic processing depends heavily on the ventral occipitotemporal cortex, particularly two distinct but complementary regions. The visual word form area (VWFA), located in the occipitotemporal sulcus (OTS), processes lexical information. The grapheme-related area (GRA) in the midfusiform sulcus handles sublexical graphemic information [2].

The mid-fusiform cortex shows early word-selective responses around 250ms, distinguishing between words and non-words before other regions [25]. The left inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF) provides critical structural connections supporting orthographic processing. Anterior segments handle top-down processes while posterior segments manage bottom-up processes in orthographic coding [25].

Syntactic Formulation and the Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus

The left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) plays a crucial role in syntactic processing during writing. Brodmann area 44 integrates syntactic and information structures during sentence comprehension [26]. Research shows that LIFG activation emerges as early as 80ms after noun/verb onset during syntactic unification processes [26].

Studies demonstrate that LIFG engages in the selection or resolution of competition between meanings, contrary to the prevailing belief that it merely responds to semantic competition [3]. This selective function explains why individuals with F81.81 often struggle with syntactic formulation in written expression.

Altered Connectivity in Superior Longitudinal and Arcuate Fasciculi

The superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF) represents the largest associative fiber bundle system in the brain, connecting frontal, temporal, and parietal regions critical for writing [5]. This white matter pathway comprises five subcomponents: SLF I connecting superior parietal and frontal lobes, SLF II linking angular gyrus to caudal-lateral prefrontal regions, SLF III connecting supramarginal gyrus to ventral premotor areas, the arcuate fasciculus (AF) connecting superior temporal gyrus to lateral prefrontal cortex, and SLF TP connecting temporal and parietal lobes [27].

Altered connectivity in these pathways, especially SLF II and SLF III which directly relate to language [4], correlates with specific writing difficulties in F81.81.

Neural Differences in Pure vs Comorbid F81.81 Presentations

The triple network model of psychopathology—involving the Salience Network (SN), Central Executive Network (CEN), and Default Mode Network (DMN)—offers a framework for understanding neurodevelopmental conditions including F81.81 [28].

Pure F81.81 presents as distinct neurocognitive subtypes:

• Graphomotor dysgraphia involving motor planning deficits

• Dyslexic dysgraphia reflecting spelling pattern mastery issues

• Executive dysgraphia relating to written language production deficits [11]

Comorbid presentations, especially with ADHD, show altered connectivity patterns. Hyperactivity/impulsivity correlates with increased functional connectivity between SN-CEN, SN-DMN, and CEN-DMN networks [28]. These connectivity differences explain why children with comorbid conditions require multimodal intervention approaches targeting specific neural circuits rather than generic writing support.

Advanced Differential Diagnosis Protocols for Written Expression Disorder

Accurate diagnosis requires more than documenting symptoms. You need sophisticated assessment protocols that pinpoint the specific cognitive processes causing writing difficulties. These approaches reveal distinct neurocognitive profiles that guide targeted intervention rather than generic support.

Cognitive Process Analysis: Working Memory vs Orthographic Coding

Your assessment must separate working memory deficits from orthographic coding issues. Spelling operates through two distinct systems: the long-term memory "orthographic output lexicon" and the working memory "graphemic buffer" [12]. Each system fails differently.

Orthographic coding deficits show clear patterns. Students perform better on high-frequency words and make phonologically plausible errors. Graphemic buffer impairments look different—accuracy decreases with longer words, and students make letter-level errors like substitutions, deletions, additions, or transpositions without lexical variable effects [12].

Orthographic coding means storing written words in working memory while analyzing letters or creating permanent memory links between written words, pronunciation, and meaning [13]. Your assessment protocol must evaluate both letter accuracy and word accuracy to locate the impairment within the spelling system. Test both orthographic long-term memory and graphemic working memory processing separately [12].

Executive Function Mapping to Differentiate from ADHD

F81.81 often co-occurs with ADHD, making executive function mapping essential for differential diagnosis. Children with ADHD show significant deficits in inhibitory control, vigilance, planning, verbal/spatial working memory, and cognitive flexibility [14].

The Barkley Deficits In Executive Functioning Scale—Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA) measures five critical scales: Self-Management to Time, Self-Organization/Problem-Solving, Self-Restraint, Self-Motivation, and Self-Regulation of Emotion [14]. This standardized tool helps distinguish between conditions.

Working memory directly supports higher-level writing processes [15]. Set-shifting remains understudied but appears more impaired in youth with ASD than ADHD [16]. Executive function difficulties create functional problems relevant to F81.81: poor organizational skills, planning deficits, and academic underachievement [16].

Motor Programming Assessment using Minnesota Handwriting Assessment

The Minnesota Handwriting Assessment (MHA) provides standardized handwriting evaluation for first and second-grade students [17]. This near-point copy assessment takes approximately 2½ minutes to administer and under 10 minutes to score [10].

The MHA scores six domains: rate, legibility, form, alignment, size, and spacing [10]. Students performing in the bottom 5% ("Performing Well Below Peers") require further evaluation [10]. The assessment includes structured forms, checklists, and scoring rubrics for reliability [18]. The Handwriting Checklist documenting posture, tool use, and grasp accounts for 23% of legibility score variance [19].

Error Pattern Analysis in Spontaneous vs Copied Writing

Error patterns between spontaneous and copied writing reveal distinct cognitive profiles. Assessment should evaluate cognitive ability alongside reading and spelling performance [20]. Comparing performance across writing tasks identifies specific deficits because different tasks engage different cognitive processes [21].

Spelling a dictated word requires phonological awareness to access phonological long-term memory, then activates orthographic long-term memory to create abstract letter representations requiring motor planning [21]. Comparing error patterns across spontaneous writing versus copying tasks distinguishes between orthographic coding deficits, motor programming issues, and linguistic formulation problems.

Evidence-Based Intervention Hierarchy: Process-Specific Approaches

Effective treatment for F81.81 demands interventions that target specific cognitive deficits rather than applying generic writing support. Each neurocognitive subtype requires distinct approaches matched to underlying mechanisms.

Structured Word Inquiry for Orthographic Deficits

Structured Word Inquiry (SWI) helps students understand the logic behind English spelling patterns. Rather than memorizing so-called "irregular" words, students investigate word structures—bases, prefixes, suffixes—and discover etymological connections [22]. This method aligns with research showing English spelling represents meaning through morphology, etymology, and phonology [23].

SWI makes sense of spelling patterns that traditional phonics instruction labels as irregular. Students learn that seemingly random spellings follow logical rules when viewed through morphological and etymological lenses. Research indicates morphological instruction particularly benefits younger and struggling students [23].

Sentence Combining for Syntactic Awareness

Sentence combining teaches students to merge simple sentences into complex, sophisticated structures. This technique directly improves sentence complexity, clarity, and variety [1]. Studies show remarkable results—seventh-grade students exposed to sentence combining wrote at 15.75 words per sentence, equivalent to twelfth-grade level, while maintaining grammatical accuracy [24].

Fourth graders also benefit significantly from this approach. Research confirms they become more skilled at combining simple sentences, produce improved stories, and apply these combining skills during revision [24].

Strategy Instruction for Working Memory Limitations

Working memory deficits create significant barriers to writing success. Effective compensatory strategies include:

• Explicit note-taking instruction – Teaching concise methods to capture key information [2]

• List-making – Creating step-by-step sequences for writing tasks [2]

• Chunking – Breaking information into manageable pieces to reduce cognitive load [2]

• Visual organizers – Using spatial arrangements to offload memory demands [25]

These strategies allow students to focus cognitive resources on higher-order writing tasks rather than struggling with memory limitations [25].

Speech-to-Text with Handwriting Instruction

Speech-to-text (STT) technology reduces transcription demands by allowing students to dictate their thoughts. Studies demonstrate STT applications effectively support text production in students with severe writing difficulties [26]. Research shows seven of eight students using STT increased productivity while maintaining or improving word-level accuracy [26].

STT works best as a complement to handwriting instruction, not a replacement. Writing develops through multiple modalities—hand movements, visual feedback, auditory input, and oral production [3]. This integrated approach ensures students maintain essential motor skills while accessing alternative expression methods.

Digital Graphic Organizers with EF Scaffolding

Digital graphic organizers provide essential executive function support for writing tasks. These tools help students organize content across different purposes: cause-effect chains demonstrate consequences, problem-solution maps analyze remediation options, and classification webs categorize ideas [5].

Research confirms graphic organizers improve both narrative and expository writing skills, with particular benefits for students with learning disabilities [27]. Collaborative strategic reading (CSR) enhances effectiveness by combining comprehension strategy instruction with cooperative learning approaches [4].

Eye-Tracking Biofeedback for Writing Fluency

Eye-tracking biofeedback represents an emerging intervention for writing fluency difficulties. Recent controlled studies show eye-tracking training significantly improves learning curves and memory recall [28]. The approach targets established connections between eye movement patterns and frontal lobe functions affecting working memory [29].

Studies report positive effects on attention, memory, and executive functions [28]. Children with dyslexia show specific improvements in reading, comprehension, and verbal memory following eye-tracking interventions [29].

Progress Monitoring and Dynamic Treatment Adjustment

Systematic monitoring drives successful F81.81 management. Data-driven decisions separate effective interventions from those that merely consume time and resources.

Curriculum-Based Measurement for Writing Fluency

Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) delivers precise tracking through standardized, brief assessments lasting 1-5 minutes. The system measures total words written (TWW), correctly spelled words (CSW), and correct writing sequences (CWS) to quantify progress [30]. These metrics establish baseline performance, set realistic goals, and evaluate intervention effectiveness through weekly or monthly probes [31].

Fifth-grade students typically produce 51 words (fall) to 67 words (spring) during these timed assessments [6]. CBM graphs provide visual representation of student progress, enabling you to make informed decisions about continuing or modifying instructional approaches [32]. The brevity and frequency of these measures make them practical for busy clinical schedules while maintaining assessment reliability.

Predicting Intervention Response from Cognitive Profiles

Certain cognitive profiles predict treatment outcomes with remarkable accuracy. Phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, and verbal working memory account for 20-25% of variance in intervention response [7]. This predictive power helps you allocate resources more effectively and set appropriate expectations with families.

Studies comparing responders versus non-responders show significant differences in global writing accuracy (p=0.029) [7]. Interestingly, pre-treatment orthographic skills, reading speed, and intermanual tactile transfer correlate negatively with improvement rates—students with greater initial deficits often demonstrate more substantial gains [7].

Dynamic Assessment to Identify Modifiable Barriers

Dynamic assessment moves beyond static testing to evaluate learning potential versus current performance [33]. The approach incorporates mediated learning experiences (MLE) with four essential components: intentionality, meaning, transcendence, and competence [33].

You assess modifiability through student responsivity, skill transfer ability, and the level of examiner effort required [33]. Students showing high modifiability despite initially low performance often respond favorably to targeted interventions [34]. This methodology reveals not only what skills students currently possess, but also how readily they acquire new strategies when provided appropriate instruction.

The test-teach-retest format offers practical advantages for clinical decision-making. Rather than accepting assessment results as fixed indicators, dynamic assessment identifies which barriers can be modified through targeted intervention.

Professional Practice Implications and Risk Mitigation

Clinical implementation of F81.81 support requires precise documentation, coordinated team approaches, and reliable assessment protocols. These elements protect both students and practitioners while ensuring effective outcomes.

Documentation for Academic Accommodations Based on Cognitive Profiles

Academic accommodations must match the specific neurocognitive profile identified through assessment. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with learning disorders qualify for special education services following thorough evaluation [8]. Severity classifications—mild, moderate, or severe—determine the accommodation level needed for effective functioning [8].

IEP teams bring together school personnel and parents to create personalized education plans. These plans should target cognitive processing deficits directly rather than managing surface symptoms [8]. Practical accommodations include:

• Reduced writing assignment complexity

• Extended time allowances

• Task segmentation into manageable stages

• Dictation alternatives

• Assistive technology integration [9]

Interdisciplinary Collaboration Models in F81.81 Management

Effective collaboration goes beyond shared caseloads. True interdisciplinary work requires trust, respect, defined roles, and mutual accountability among team members [35]. This approach optimizes client outcomes while boosting professional confidence [35].

Interdisciplinary models surpass multidisciplinary approaches through joint goal setting and collaborative problem-solving [35]. Successful teams align around evidence-supported treatments, assessment-guided interventions, and data-driven decisions [35]. However, research reveals teams collaborate effectively in assessment and IEP development but struggle with consistent instruction and progress monitoring [36].

Addressing Academic Anxiety and Self-Efficacy

Writing anxiety creates significant barriers for students with F81.81, undermining both learning and confidence [37]. This anxiety appears as intense discomfort, worry, and fear during writing tasks [38]. Students develop writing avoidance, which further impacts motivation and performance quality [38].

Research confirms a clear relationship—lower writing anxiety correlates with higher quality written output [38]. Self-efficacy serves as a protective factor, as confident learners show greater persistence and produce better work [39]. Effective interventions must address both cognitive skills and emotional components simultaneously [39].

Standardized Protocols: PAL-II, TOWL-4, RTI Models

The Test of Written Language-Fourth Edition (TOWL-4) offers reliable diagnostic assessment for ages 9-17 years [40]. This tool identifies specific strengths and weaknesses, documents progress, and requires 60-90 minutes to complete [40].

TOWL-4 generates composite scores across three areas: Overall Writing, Contrived Writing, and Spontaneous Writing through seven subtests [41]. Recent updates include grade-based norms, elimination of floor/ceiling effects, and sensitivity/specificity validation studies [41].

Response to Intervention (RTI) frameworks complement these standardized protocols. Together, they enable systematic screening, progress monitoring, and identification of students requiring intensive support [8]. This structured approach ensures no student falls through assessment gaps while providing clear intervention pathways.

Conclusion

Written Expression Disorder demands precision in both diagnosis and treatment. Surface-level symptoms mask the true complexity underneath—distinct neural networks that each require targeted intervention approaches.

Your clinical success depends on recognizing these neurocognitive subtypes. The dorsal frontoparietal network handles graphomotor planning. Ventral pathways manage orthographic processing. The left inferior frontal gyrus controls syntactic formulation. Each network operates independently, creating unique patterns of difficulty in your clients.

Differential diagnosis protocols make the difference between effective treatment and wasted time. Cognitive process analysis separates working memory issues from orthographic coding problems. Error pattern analysis between spontaneous and copied writing reveals the specific cognitive profile guiding your intervention choices.

Evidence strongly supports process-specific interventions over generic writing support. Structured Word Inquiry targets orthographic deficits with surgical precision. Sentence combining builds syntactic awareness systematically. Strategy instruction compensates for working memory limitations while digital organizers scaffold executive functions.

Ready to implement precision-based writing interventions in your practice?

Yung Sidekick captures detailed session insights that help you track cognitive patterns and intervention responses in real-time. Our AI generates comprehensive reports highlighting specific writing difficulties, intervention effectiveness, and progress patterns—giving you the data needed for precision treatment adjustments.

Try Yung Sidekick Free and see how detailed session analytics enhance your F81.81 treatment protocols.

Progress monitoring through curriculum-based measurement provides essential treatment adjustment data. Dynamic assessment identifies modifiable barriers, allowing you to customize interventions to each student's learning potential. Cognitive profiles reliably predict intervention response, enabling precise treatment planning from initial assessment.

Professional practice implications extend beyond individual therapy sessions. Documentation for academic accommodations must align with specific neurocognitive subtypes. Interdisciplinary collaboration models enhance F81.81 management through coordinated care approaches. Standardized protocols ensure consistent assessment and intervention quality across settings.

The field continues advancing with promising developments like eye-tracking biofeedback for writing fluency. These innovations emphasize mechanism-targeted approaches based on neuropsychological understanding rather than symptom management.

Address both cognitive skill development and emotional components like academic anxiety for optimal outcomes. Writing anxiety creates significant barriers that undermine even the most sophisticated interventions. Self-efficacy plays a crucial role—students with confidence demonstrate greater persistence and produce higher quality work.

F81.81 presents complex challenges, yet targeted interventions matched to specific neurocognitive profiles offer clear paths toward meaningful improvement. The neural networks underlying writing difficulties are becoming increasingly understood, enabling more precise diagnostic and treatment approaches than ever before.

Summary

Written Expression Disorder requires neuroscience-informed treatment approaches that target specific cognitive mechanisms rather than surface symptoms. Precision diagnosis using advanced protocols, combined with process-specific interventions and systematic progress monitoring, delivers superior outcomes for affected individuals across their lifespan.

Yung Sidekick helps mental health professionals implement these evidence-based approaches through detailed session analysis and comprehensive reporting. Our AI technology captures the nuanced patterns essential for precision treatment of writing difficulties, enabling you to focus fully on your clients while ensuring no critical details are missed.

Start Your Free Trial and experience how advanced session analytics enhance your clinical precision in treating written expression disorders.

Key Takeaways

Written Expression Disorder (F81.81) involves complex neural networks requiring targeted interventions based on specific cognitive deficits rather than generic writing support.

• Neural networks drive writing difficulties: F81.81 stems from distinct brain pathways - dorsal frontoparietal networks for motor planning, ventral pathways for spelling, and left frontal regions for syntax.

• Precise diagnosis enables targeted treatment: Advanced assessment protocols distinguish between working memory deficits, orthographic coding issues, and motor programming problems to guide intervention selection.

• Process-specific interventions outperform generic approaches: Structured Word Inquiry for spelling deficits, sentence combining for syntax, and strategy instruction for memory limitations yield superior results.

• Progress monitoring drives treatment success: Curriculum-based measurement and dynamic assessment identify what works, enabling data-driven adjustments to maximize intervention effectiveness.

• Interdisciplinary collaboration optimizes outcomes: Coordinated teams using standardized protocols (TOWL-4, CBM) while addressing both cognitive skills and academic anxiety produce the best long-term results.

Understanding F81.81 as a neurocognitive condition with distinct subtypes transforms treatment from symptom management to mechanism-targeted intervention, offering hope for meaningful improvement across the lifespan.

FAQs

What is Written Expression Disorder (F81.81) and how common is it?

Written Expression Disorder is a condition where individuals struggle to express their thoughts in writing despite normal intelligence and adequate instruction. It affects between 5% and 20% of all children, with boys more commonly affected than girls.

How does Written Expression Disorder differ from other learning disabilities?

Unlike other learning disabilities, Written Expression Disorder specifically impacts a person's ability to write effectively. It goes beyond simple spelling errors or poor handwriting, affecting the overall ability to express thoughts coherently in written form.

What are some effective interventions for Written Expression Disorder?

Effective interventions include Structured Word Inquiry for orthographic deficits, sentence combining for syntactic awareness, strategy instruction for working memory limitations, and digital graphic organizers to scaffold executive functions. These targeted approaches are more effective than generic writing support.

How is Written Expression Disorder diagnosed?

Diagnosis involves advanced protocols such as cognitive process analysis to distinguish between working memory and orthographic coding issues, executive function mapping to differentiate from ADHD, and error pattern analysis in spontaneous vs. copied writing. Standardized assessments like the Test of Written Language-Fourth Edition (TOWL-4) are also used.

Can adults have Written Expression Disorder?

Yes, Written Expression Disorder can persist into adulthood. Adults with this condition may continue to experience impairment in vocational progress and daily activities that require written communication skills.

References

[1] - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23294-dysgraphia
[2] - https://www.additudemag.com/what-is-dysgraphia-understanding-common-symptoms/?srsltid=AfmBOoqYWDTshN5B1FOwwlBsYcFxQF4Z9OfDGzgDCyVkDuFUyFBFpjp2
[3] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7082241/
[4] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28578977/
[5] - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.20.549926v1
[6] - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904184116
[7] - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.18.955039v1.full-text
[8] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X19303372
[9] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X25000021
[10] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41376-x
[11] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2566953/
[12] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9093186/
[13] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3633629/
[14] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/radiology/articles/10.3389/fradi.2023.1121879/full
[15] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10709083/
[16] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119790563.ch25
[17] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3145833/
[18] - https://dyslexiaida.org/understanding-dysgraphia/
[19] - https://mecp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43045-020-00071-8
[20] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10573569.2021.1948374
[21] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11485171/
[22] - https://www.pearsonassessments.com/en-us/Store/Professional-Assessments/Motor-Sensory/Minnesota-Handwriting-Assessment/p/100000275?srsltid=AfmBOoos4LM0Y0Ly26KJDF77FPEUxJSVCtj1GwxhdJtZeWNwsALf7lbZ
[23] - https://www.txautism.net/evaluations/minnesota-handwriting-assessment
[24] - http://mcsprogram.org/browse/u2D275/243608/Minnesota Handwriting Assessment Manual.pdf
[25] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19411240802312947
[26] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2967798/
[27] - https://www.dyslexiatraininginstitute.org/orthography/structured-word-inquiry-og-dyslexia/
[28] - https://www.wordworkskingston.com/WordWorks/Structured_Word_Inquiry.html
[29] - https://lincs.ed.gov/state-resources/federal-initiatives/teal/guide/combinesentence
[30] - https://www.quill.org/teacher-center/-3
[31] - https://www.thepathway2success.com/strategies-to-build-working-memory/
[32] - https://www.ldatschool.ca/working-memory-difficulties/
[33] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17483107.2024.2351488
[34] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4217090/
[35] - https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/activity/graphic-organizers/
[36] - https://www.branchingminds.com/blog/interventions-for-writing
[37] - https://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/scaffolding-comprehension-strategies-using
[38] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9383673/
[39] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362759639_Eye-tracking_training_improves_the_learning_and_memory_of_children_with_learning_difficulty
[40] - https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519251.pdf
[41] - https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/assessment-and-evaluation/articles/what-curriculum-based-measurement-and-what-does-it-mean
[42] - https://www.interventioncentral.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pdfs_blog/wright_Learning_Spark_Blog_29_March_2013_Grs_1_5_Identfy_Writing_Difficulties_NORMS_Table.pdf
[43] - https://my.vanderbilt.edu/spedteacherresources/what-is-curriculum-based-measurement/
[44] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11352360/
[45] - https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/sl-da-guidance.pdf
[46] - https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/ebp-briefs/ebp-v14a4.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOorZdbP-CmxgqfL43sv6928f0_QiugoQkC471d9V7Vbory0VG8oW
[47] - https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/specific-learning-disorder/what-is-specific-learning-disorder
[48] - https://www.mindyra.com/solutions/child/learning-disability-written-expression
[49] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8586302/
[50] - https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1302874
[51] - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1130149/full
[52] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374765843_Anxiety_and_the_Production_of_Writing
[53] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0346251X24002677
[54] - https://www.pearsonassessments.com/en-us/Store/Professional-Assessments/Speech-%26-Language/Test-of-Written-Language-|-Fourth-Edition/p/100000083?srsltid=AfmBOoq-AIx4GAmw_-Y8LG1Nfscn0xDtSkxpL9BAL4xJfUprDTuDkr-Y
[55] - https://www.proedinc.com/Products/12850/towl4-test-of-written-languagefourth-edition.aspx