Content uploaded by Cynthia Puranik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cynthia Puranik on Jan 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contributions of Emergent Literacy Skills to Name Writing,
Letter Writing, and Spelling in Preschool Children
Cynthia S. Puranik,
University of Pittsburgh
Christopher J. Lonigan, and
Florida Center for Reading Research & Florida State University
Young-Suk Kim
Florida Center for Reading Research & Florida State University
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine which emergent literacy skills contribute to preschool
children’s emergent writing (name-writing, letter-writing, and spelling) skills. Emergent reading
and writing tasks were administered to 296 preschool children aged 4–5 years. Print knowledge
and letter-writing skills made positive contributions to name writing; whereas alphabet
knowledge, print knowledge, and name writing made positive contributions to letter writing. Both
name-writing and letter-writing skills made significant contributions to the prediction of spelling
after controlling for age, parental education, print knowledge, phonological awareness, and letter-
name and letter-sound knowledge; however, only letter-writing abilities made a significant unique
contribution to the prediction of spelling when both letter-writing and name-writing skills were
considered together. Name writing reflects knowledge of some letters rather than a broader
knowledge of letters that may be needed to support early spelling. Children’s letter-writing skills
may be a better indicator of children’s emergent literacy and developing spelling skills than are
their name-writing skills at the end of the preschool year. Spelling is a developmentally complex
skill beginning in preschool and includes letter writing and blending skills, print knowledge, and
letter-name and letter-sound knowledge.
Keywords
alphabet knowledge; emergent literacy; letter writing; name-writing; spelling
Writing is a difficult task, both for beginning and mature writers. Hence, it is a tremendous
accomplishment when young children begin writing. Conventional writing begins with
children either writing letters or writing their names. Although we have learned a great deal
about the skills that contribute to or lay the foundation for early reading, we know less about
the skills that contribute to young children’s early writing. A few studies have examined the
component skills that contribute to name writing, but no study to date has examined skills
that contribute to letter writing. Also among children’s early writing endeavors are their
attempts to spell single words. The ability to spell words signals a major milestone in
children’s literacy acquisition. To be able to spell, children need to draw upon and use
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our
customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of
the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Early Child Res Q
. 2011 September ; 26(4): 465–474. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.03.002.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
several emergent literacy skills, which is why spelling is considered a good reflection of
children’s understanding and learning of the alphabetic principle (Ehri, 2000; Shatil, Share,
& Levin, 2000; Treiman, 2006) and a good predictor of their reading skills (McBride-
Chang, 1998; Richgels, 1995; Richgels & Barnhart, 1992; Stage & Wagner, 1992; Tangel &
Blachman, 1992). Although there is a sizeable amount of research on children’s spelling,
there have been few investigations of spelling in preschool children compared to the number
of investigations of spelling in kindergarten or grade school children, and in these few
investigations, spelling has been used primarily as a variable to predict current or later
reading outcomes (e.g., McBride-Chang, 1998; Richgels, 1995; Richgels & Barnhart, 1992;
Stage & Wagner, 1992). The few investigations of spelling in preschool children have
focused on providing qualitative descriptions of their spelling abilities and have been
“directed mainly at describing what children do, instead of how they do it” (Ouellette &
Sénéchal, 2008, p.196, emphasis in the original). Hence, the primary purpose of this study
was to examine if and how emergent literacy skills (alphabet knowledge, phonological
awareness, print knowledge) contribute to preschool children’s early writing attempts-name
writing, letter writing, and spelling.
Contribution of Emergent Literacy Skills to Name Writing
Despite an interest in name-writing skills and its important role in the development of
literacy, only a few studies have systematically investigated which emergent literacy skills
contribute to children’s abilities to write their names. Given that a child’s name is among the
first things that children write (Both-de Vries & Bus, 2008, 2010; Clay, 1975; Martens,
1999), examining what skills contribute to name writing will add to our current
understanding of writing development. Blair and Savage (2006) reported that phonological
awareness and letter-sound knowledge were strongly related to children’s name-writing
abilities; whereas Welsch, Sullivan, and Justice (2003) found that phonological awareness
was not related to a child’s name-writing ability when print-related knowledge was
accounted for. Instead letter-name recognition and print knowledge predicted name writing.
Bloodgood (1999) reported high concurrent correlations between name writing and letter
writing. As is evident, there is no consensus on what component skills contribute to a child’s
name-writing ability and different skills appear to be related to a child’s name-writing ability
depending on what tasks were included in a study. We extend the findings of these previous
investigations by including a comprehensive set of emergent literacy tasks to clarify the
shared and unique contributions of emergent literacy skills to name writing.
Contribution of Emergent Literacy Skills to Letter Writing
In addition to examining which emergent literacy skills contribute to name writing in
preschool children, we were also interested in examining which literacy skills contribute to
letter writing. As mentioned previously, no study to date has examined skills that contribute
to letter writing, so we investigated potentially important literacy skills (alphabet
knowledge, print knowledge, phonological awareness, and name writing) that could
contribute to the development of letter writing. Letter writing represents a child’s attempt at
retrieving the visual shapes and names of letters and as such should be facilitated by a
child’s alphabet knowledge. Children’s print knowledge, was included because it is
generally believed that children need to have some basic knowledge about print and
understand how print functions before they begin writing (e.g., Clay, 1975; Mason, 1980;
Sulzby, 1985). Finally, name writing was included because some researchers believe that
one’s first name is the first word that children attempt and learn to write.
Puranik et al. Page 2
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Contribution of Emergent Literacy Skills to Spelling
According to the comprehensive review by National Early Literacy Panel (NELP; Lonigan,
Schatschneider, & Westberg, 2008) four emergent literacy skills play an important role in
the development of children’s spelling skills include alphabet knowledge, phonological
awareness, print knowledge, and name-writing. We briefly review the research below.
The term alphabet knowledge is generally used to refer to young children’s ability to
identify letter names and letter sounds, and it has been shown to be one of the best indicators
of eventual reading and spelling achievement (Adams, 1990; Moats, 2005; Stevenson &
Newman, 1986; Treiman, 2006). Children lacking alphabet knowledge have trouble
recognizing and distinguishing between the letters of the alphabet, and they have difficulty
learning letter-sound correspondences (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Mason, 1980), which is the
foundation for decoding and spelling. According to the National Early Literacy Panel report
(NELP; Lonigan et al., 2008), measures of children’s alphabet knowledge yielded a strong
relation with spelling outcomes; r = .54 averaged across 18 studies involving 2,619 children
in either preschool or kindergarten. Multivariate studies, including concurrent and
longitudinal studies, examining the relation between alphabet knowledge and spelling
revealed that alphabet knowledge was a significant predictor of spelling even after
controlling for age, SES, oral language, phonological awareness, and IQ (Lonigan et al.,
2008).
Considerable evidence exists on the important role of phonological awareness to the
acquisition of spelling skills (Ehri, 1989; Ehri & Wilce, 1987; Moats, 2005; Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998). Researchers have suggested that the relationship between phonological
awareness and spelling is bidirectional such that phonological awareness facilitates spelling
abilities and learning how to spell in turn improves phonological awareness (Ehri, 2005;
Martins & Silva, 2006). In fact, some researchers have suggested that measures of children’s
invented spelling could be used as a proxy for phonological awareness skills (e.g., Mann,
1993; McBride-Chang, 1998). According to the NELP report, measures of phonological
awareness had an average correlation of r =.40 with spelling in 21 studies involving 2,522
preschool and kindergarten children (Lonigan et al., 2008). Multivariate studies, including
concurrent and longitudinal studies, examining the relation between phonological awareness
and spelling have shown that phonological awareness is a significant predictor of spelling
even after controlling for age, SES, oral language, alphabet knowledge, and IQ (Lonigan et
al., 2008).
Children’s knowledge of the functions and conventions of print (referred to in the literature
as print concepts, print awareness, or print knowledge) appears to be related to the
development of both emergent and conventional literacy skills, including spelling (Chaney,
1998; Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax, & Perney, 2003; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Walpole,
Chow, & Justice, 2004; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Children’s print knowledge includes
understanding the difference between print and pictures, the difference between letters and
numbers, and conventions of print, which include knowledge that words are separated by
spaces, and that writing is arranged linearly. Researchers generally agree that print
knowledge is an important first step in the acquisition of literacy skills (Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982; Fox & Saracho, 1990; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Mason, 1980; Tolchinsky-
Landsman & Levin, 1985; Tolchinsky-Landsman & Levin, 1987). Developing an
understanding of functions and conventions of print is an important precursor to
understanding letter-sound relationships (Adams, 1990; Lomax & McGee, 1987). Measures
of print knowledge have been shown to have an average correlation of .43 with spelling
involving 534 preschool and kindergarten children across four studies (Lonigan et al., 2008).
Puranik et al. Page 3
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Finally, name writing has received a fair amount of attention--perhaps because some literacy
researchers, view name writing as a window into a child’s emergent literacy development
(Bloodgood, 1999; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Levin, Both-de Vries, Aram, & Bus, 2005)
and as a foundation on which to build other literacy skills (Bloodgood, 1999). Name writing
has also been shown to be a strong indicator of children’s print-related knowledge and
phonological awareness skills (Blair & Savage, 2006; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982), a good
reflection of preschoolers’ alphabet knowledge (Bloodgood, 1999; Molfese, Beswick,
Molnar, & Jacobi-Vessels, 2006; Welsch et al., 2003), and a good indicator of children’s
conventional literacy skills (Badian, 1982; Levin & Aram, 2004; Strickland & Shanahan,
2004). In addition to its important role in the development of reading, name writing appears
to play an important role in the development of spelling. According to the NELP report
(Lonigan et al., 2008), name-writing abilities showed a moderate relation of r = .36 to
spelling in preschool and kindergarten children.
In addition to the emergent literacy skills just described (i.e., phonological awareness,
alphabet knowledge, print knowledge, and name writing), one specific emergent literacy
skill that is also likely to contribute to the development of spelling and early writing is letter
writing. As noted by Berninger et al., (2006) “Letter production is a fundamentally
important process in written expression” (p. 87). Although alphabet knowledge has been
shown to be an excellent predictor of spelling, assessment of alphabet knowledge has
generally included children’s naming of letters, recognition of letters, or examining letter
sounds (e.g., Both-de Vries & Bus, 2010; Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Levin & Ehri, 2009;
McBride-Chang, 1998; Treiman & Broderich, 1998), and children’s letter-writing or letter-
production skills are not considered when examining the relation between alphabet
knowledge and spelling. However, spelling a word requires translating spoken language into
print, (i.e., identifying phonemes and translating them to letters followed by the actual
writing of the letter represented by that sound). To write letters successfully, children are
required to retrieve names and visual shapes of letters, and visually encode letters with
execution of fine-motor movements (Berninger, 1999). Hence, the ability to write letters
may have some impact on a child’s spelling proficiency over and above the ability to name
letters and their associated sounds.
The rationale for including letter writing in investigations of spelling is further supported by
research on writing with older children in elementary and middle school. Berninger and
colleagues (e.g., Berninger, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994; Berninger, Yates,
Cartwright, Rutberg, Remy, & Abbott, 1992; Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, &
Whitaker, 1997) have shown that letter-writing fluency constrains children’s abilities to
spell and compose text. Graham et al. (1997) suggested that children who are fluent at letter
writing have more attentional and cognitive resources to divert to spelling and composing
compared to children who are less fluent at letter writing. Furthermore, orthographic
knowledge (knowledge pertaining to the visual recognition of allowable characters and
specific sequences of graphemes representing written words), has been shown to make
important contributions to spelling in beginning writers (Kim, 2010; Ouellette & Sénéchal,
2008) and letter writing skill is an excellent indicator of children’s developing orthographic
knowledge (Puranik & Apel, 2010). Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the ability to
write letters would influence preschool children’s ability to spell. In other words, preschool
children who are more proficient letter writers will have more attentional and cognitive
resources to divert to spelling compared to children who are less proficient letter writers.
Present Study
To summarize, we have little understanding of the componential skills that contribute to
name writing and letter writing--two of the earliest writing attempts of young children.
Puranik et al. Page 4
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Hence, aims of this study included examining the componential skills that contribute to
children’s name writing and letter writing. Although several studies have investigated the
contributions of various emergent literacy skills to spelling (see NELP 2008 report), the
contribution of these various literacy skills to spelling has been examined in isolation and to
date, no single study has evaluated the shared and unique contributions of a comprehensive
set of emergent literacy skills with respect to spelling in preschool children. Additionally,
some researchers contend that alphabet knowledge, specifically, letter name knowledge and
some degree of phonological awareness are sufficient for children to spell (Juel, 1988, Silva
& Martens, 2003). However, these previous studies have not considered the contribution of
children’s letter writing abilities when examining spelling. So, the final aim of this study
was to examine the shared and unique concurrent contributions of various emergent literacy
skills to spelling, including letter writing.
We hypothesized that preschool children’s letter writing skills would uniquely contribute to
their spelling skills, because it is a reflection of their emergent orthographic knowledge
(Puranik & Apel, 2010). Whereas orthographic knowledge has been shown to play an
important role in spelling for older children (e.g., Kim, 2010; Ouellette & Sénéchal, 2008),
its role has not been examined in preschool children’s spelling. We also hypothesized that
name writing would not make a unique contribution to spelling after accounting for
children’s letter-writing skills although previous research indicates that name writing plays
an important role in early spelling (Bloodgood, 1999; Both-de Vries & Bus, 2010; Levin et
al., 2005; Treiman & Broderick, 1998). We hypothesized that name writing reflects
knowledge of some letters (contained in one’s name) rather than the broader orthographic
knowledge of letters needed to support spelling.
In this study, preschool children were assessed on their alphabet knowledge, phonological
awareness, print knowledge, name writing, letter writing, and spelling. Specific research
questions we examined in this study were as follows: (a) Which emergent literacy skills (i.e.,
phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, print awareness, and letter writing) uniquely
contribute to preschool children’s name writing? (b) Which emergent literacy skills (i.e.,
phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, print awareness, and name writing) uniquely
contribute to preschool children’s letter-writing skills? (c) Which emergent literacy skills
(i.e., phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, print awareness, name writing, and letter
writing) uniquely contribute to preschool children’s spelling?
Method
Participants
Participants for this study were recruited from 30 different private preschools and public and
private child-care centers in a moderate-sized city in north Florida. These preschools and
centers served students from a diverse range of socioeconomic status (SES); six schools
were categorized as high-SES (less than 25% of students receive subsidies), 11 schools as
mid-SES (25–49% students receive subsidies), and 13 schools as low-SES (75% + students
receive subsidies). Informed consent forms were distributed to parents of all children in the
participating centers through their classroom teachers. Only children whose parents or
guardians returned signed consent forms participated in this study. Results are reported for
296 children who ranged in age from 51 to 65 months, with a mean age of 58.5 months (SD
= 3.56). Based on parent report, ethnicities of these children were: White (48.9%), Black/
African-American (42.2%), Asian (2.4 %), Hispanic (3.1 %), and other (3.4%). The sample
included 168 males (56.8%) and 128 females (43.2%). Children’s parents were asked to
complete a questionnaire that included information about family socio-economic status
(SES; i.e., education, income). Questionnaires were completed by 64% of the sample. Based
on these responses, parental education in the sample was normally distributed and ranged
Puranik et al. Page 5
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
from “did not complete high school” to “postdoctoral degree.” The median level of
education reported was in the range of “completed some college” to “completed AA
degree.” Only 10% of the sample reported completing a BA or above, and less than 10%
reported less than a high school diploma or GED. Median reported income was in the
$31,000 to $40,000 range.
Because we were interested in assessing a diverse group of preschoolers, no exclusionary
criteria (such as cut-off scores) were used to screen children. However, we used teacher-
report to confirm that none of the children had a history of frank neurological, motor, or
uncorrected visual deficits, or had developmental delays that might have hindered typical
literacy development or made it difficult for them to participate in the assessments.
Procedures and routines at the participating preschools were comparable and included a
variety of activities seen in typical preschool classrooms. These included painting, drawing,
puzzles, toys, dress-up clothes, books, music, and activity centers. All preschools reported
activities involving identifying children’s names and learning the letters of the alphabet.
Procedure and Materials
Trained research assistants tested each child individually at their child-care centers or
preschools. The assessment was conducted in a quiet room and completed in two to three
sessions that lasted approximately 20 to 40 minutes each depending on the child’s tolerance
level. Children were assessed within a 2- to 3-week period in the spring of the school year.
Measures
Alphabet knowledge—The Alphabet subtest of the Test of Early Reading Ability-3rd
Edition (TERA-3; Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 2001) was administered as a measure of
alphabet knowledge. The TERA-3 is a standardized, norm-referenced assessment. The
Alphabet subtest includes 29 items, which measure letter-name and letter-sound knowledge,
and letter/word identification skills. Sample items include questions such as, “what letter is
this?” “This word says blue. What letter does it start with?” Internal consistency coefficients
for the subtest, as reported by the authors, range from .88 to .97.
Phonological awareness—Two subtests from the Preschool Comprehensive Test of
Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP; Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte,
2002) were administered. The Pre-CTOPPP was the development version of the Test of
Preschool Early Literacy (Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007) and was designed
as a downward extension of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP;
Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). The elision subtest included 18 items that assess
analysis and the blending subtest included 21 items that assess synthesis skills across the
developmental continuum of phonological awareness (Anthony, Lonigan, Burgess, Driscoll,
Phillips, & Bloomfield, 2002). Sample items for the analysis subtest included asking
children to respond to questions such as “Look at these pictures. My word is (sunflower).
Say (sunflower). Now point to sunflower without flower”. The child is expected to point to
the picture of (sun) from an array of four pictures. Sample items for the blending subtest
included asking children to respond to questions such as, “What words do these make: hot-
dog, air-plane”. The two phonological awareness (PA) tasks chosen for this study were
based on theoretical conceptualizations of the development of PA and extensive research
with preschool children indicating the importance of these skills for learning to read
(Anthony et al., 2002; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Reliabilities for the blending and elision
subtests of the Pre-CTOPPP for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children are reported to be high (α = .
86 to .88).
Puranik et al. Page 6
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Print knowledge—We developed a measure that included 24 items to assess children’s
knowledge about print conventions. The measure included questions to assess knowledge
regarding the universal principles of print (e.g., which one is drawing? which one is
writing?), environmental print (e.g., which one says Wal-Mart™? which one says Coca
Cola™?), functions of print (e.g., show me a map? what do people do with a map?), and
concepts regarding writing (e.g., which one is a word? which is the best way to hold a
pencil?). Children were shown a set of four pictures and had to point to the correct picture
for all the items except for portions of the functions of print subtest where they had to also
answer specific questions (e.g., what do people do with a newspaper?).
Name writing—The examiner gave the child paper and pencil and asked the child to write
his or her name. Children’ name writing was scored on a 9-point scale using a modified
version of the rubric used by Levin et al. (2005) to score name writing. On this scale,
children were progressively awarded a higher score based on the number of the writing
features they display. Inclusion of specific writing features was compiled from findings of
previous investigations examining children’s name writing (e.g., Ferreiro & Teberosky,
1982; Hildreth, 1936; Levin & Bus, 2003; Levin et al., 2005; Lieberman, 1985; Puranik &
Lonigan, 2010; Saracho, 1990). Scores were awarded as follows: 0- No response or a
scribble produced by scratching generally distributed over the page; 1-A scribble which is
linear, i.e., organized in a horizontal or vertical line; 2-Writing contains distinguishable/
separate units (e.g., circles, dots, or lines that are separated). Child needed to have at least 2
to receive credit with the exception of a cursive line that goes up and down repeatedly; 3-
Writing contains simple characters—units are simple forms including dots, circles, square
and triangle like forms, short lines and symbols-that are separated; 4-Writing contains
simple characters and is written demonstrating left-to-right orientation; 5-Writing contains
first letter of name and other letters may be represented by simple characters; 6-Writing
contains first letter of name and other letters may be represented by complex characters—the
units are not simple, but include pseudo and real letters; 7-Writes name using correct first
letter and represents other sounds in name with random letters; 8-Writes more than half of
the letters contained in their first name; 9-Correctly spells first name using conventional
spelling.
Letter writing—To assess letter-writing skills, children were asked to write each of 10
letters named by the examiner (B, D, S, T, O, A, H, K, M, C). The number of letters was
based on recommendations made by Mason and Stewart (1990). Particular letters were
chosen based on previous research documenting the letters known most frequently by
preschool children (e.g., Justice, Pence, Bowles, & Wiggins, 2006; Phillips, Lonigan, &
Graham, 2006). Letters of low to moderate difficulty were chosen to ensure that some
children could write some of the letters but there was little redundancy. The examiner said a
letter in the same random order and the children were asked to write the letter. Children’s
responses were scored as 0, 1, or 2 depending on if, and how well or poorly, the letters were
formed. Although no specific directions regarding case were given, the majority of children
wrote upper case letters. Children were given points for correct letters they wrote
irrespective of the case. Children obtained a score of 0 if they did not respond or wrote an
unrecognizable letter. A score of 1 was given if the letter was reversed or was poorly formed
and recognized only in context. A score of 2 was given if the letter was written accurately
and could be recognized out of context.
Spelling—The spelling task included six items that required children to write common
consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words (i.e., mat, bed, duck, cat, fell, hen). The spelling
task was scored on a 7-point scale using a modified version of the Tangel and Blachman
(1992) spelling rubric. According to this scale, children receive points for the number of
Puranik et al. Page 7
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
phonemes they represent in writing. Children were given a score of 1 if they responded
verbally with random letters, 2 if they produced a scribble, 3 if they used random letters to
spell a word (e.g., “toh” for “bed;” “ka for “fell”), 4 if they wrote the correct initial or last
letter (e.g., “mob” for “mat;” “tad” for “bed”), 5 if their spelling contained the correct initial
and last letter (e.g., “fl” for “fell;” “hn” for “hen”), 6 if they had the first and last letter but
the incorrect vowel (e.g., “hin” for “hen;” “bad” for “bed”) or used phonetically acceptable
but not conventional spelling (e.g., “duc” for “duck;” “fel” for “fell”), and 7 if they had the
correct/conventional spelling.
Inter-rater Reliability
The alphabet knowledge, print knowledge, and phonological awareness tasks were scored
separately by two research assistants and entered into the database twice. After practice and
establishing coding guidelines, two research assistants and the first author coded the name-
writing, letter-writing, and the spelling tasks. To calculate inter-rater reliability,
approximately 25 percent (n = 74) of the written samples were randomly chosen. Inter-rater
reliability was 94% for the letter-writing task, 95% for the name-writing task, and 91% for
the spelling task. All scoring differences were settled by consensus following discussion.
Results
Means and standard deviations for the emergent literacy measures are presented in Table 1.
Internal reliability coefficients (αs) for all measures for the sample included in this study are
also shown in Table 1. Large variation was observed in children’s alphabet knowledge,
letter-writing skills, and their spelling skills. The scores for the spelling task were normally
distributed (skewness = .24, kurtosis = −.55). As expected, some ceiling effects were noted
in children’s name-writing skills. The majority of children (57%) wrote their names using
conventional spelling, and they received a perfect score of 9. Given the fact that older
children were substantially more likely to score at or near ceiling levels on the name writing
task, prior to data analyses, we computed and compared correlations between the 4-year-old
(N = 173) and 5-year-old (N = 123) children. Results of these analyses revealed that the
correlations were similar for spelling (rs = .47, .48), letter writing (rs = .61, .61), and
alphabet knowledge (rs = .45, .42), and were higher in the 4-year-old subsample for print
knowledge (rs = .60, .45), blending (rs = .49, .34), and elision (rs = .44, .34); however, none
of these differences were statistically significant. Hence, all data were analyzed as one
group.
Correlations between children’s age and the emergent literacy and writing measures were
small but significant for most variables: Spelling (r = .22, p = .001), Letter writing (r =.26,
p = .001), Name writing (r =.25, p = .001), Alphabet Knowledge (r =.03, p = .61), Print
Knowledge (r =.26, p = .001), Blending, and Elision (r =.15, r = .18 respectively, ps = .01).
Hence, partial correlations, controlling for age were computed (Table 1). All the measures
were significantly and positively related to each other. Letter writing, alphabet knowledge,
and print knowledge were strongly related to children’s performance on the spelling task (rs
≥ .56), whereas name-writing and phonological awareness tasks were moderately related to
spelling (rs ≥ .44). Children’s name writing, alphabet knowledge, and print knowledge were
highly related to letter writing (rs = .60, .68 & .59, respectively).
The last correlation analysis was conducted for socio-economic factors such as income and
parental education and variables included in the study (shown in Table 1). Because parent
surveys were only available for 64% of the sample, we imputed parent education and
income for the other 36% of the sample. As seen in Table 1, there were only minor
differences in correlations with and without imputation. Similar results were obtained for
reported income; however, the partial correlations were generally lower for income than for
Puranik et al. Page 8
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
parental education. Consequently, parental education was used in subsequent analyses to
control for the influence of SES on children’s measured skills.
To examine the joint and unique predictive variance of the emergent writing and reading
skills to name writing, letter writing, and spelling abilities, we employed multilevel
modeling because children were nested within classrooms. These models included both
chronological age and parental education as control variables because they were
significantly correlated with the outcome variables. Because parental education was imputed
for 36% of the sample, multilevel models restricted to participants for whom data from
parent surveys were available were also evaluated. These models yielded results similar to
those using the imputed values of parental education; therefore, only results from the latter
are reported. A true R-squared is not available in multilevel modeling; therefore, pseudo R-
squared was obtained using the method described by Bickel (2007).
Intraclass correlations from unconditional models showed that variance attributable to
differences across classrooms was .14, .26, and .29 for the name-writing, letter-writing, and
spelling outcomes, respectively. Table 2 displays results for the name-writing outcome.
Based on previous research, in Model 1, emergent literacy skills such as alphabet
knowledge, print knowledge, and phonological awareness (i.e., blending and elision) were
included as predictors. Model 2 additionally included letter writing to examine the unique
relation between letter writing and name writing. Children’s print knowledge (p < .001) was
uniquely and positively related to name writing after accounting for phonological awareness,
alphabet knowledge, and letter writing (Models 1 & 2). In contrast, children’s phonological
awareness (blending [ps > .053], elision [ps > .34]) was not uniquely related to name writing
after accounting for alphabet knowledge and print knowledge (Model 1) or letter writing
(Model 2). The unique relation between alphabet knowledge and name writing was not
statistically significant once letter writing was taken into consideration in addition to print
knowledge and phonological awareness (Model 2). Children’s performance on the letter-
writing task was positively and uniquely related to name writing after accounting for
alphabet knowledge, print knowledge, and phonological awareness (Model 2). The
predictors in Models 1 and 2 for the name-writing outcome explained 29% and 38% of the
explainable variance, respectively. An examination of variance components suggested that
there was statistically significant variation in the observed outcome at the child level but not
at the classroom level after accounting for the predictors included in the models.
When the outcome was letter writing (Table 3), both alphabet knowledge and print
knowledge (ps < .001) were uniquely and positively related whereas blending and elision
abilities were not (ps ≥ .26; Models 1 & 2). Name writing was uniquely related to letter
writing after accounting for alphabet knowledge, print knowledge, and phonological
awareness (Model 2). The predictors in Models 1 and 2 for the letter-writing outcome
explained 46% and 52% of the variance, respectively. An examination of variance
components suggested that there was statistically significant variation in the observed
outcome at the child level but not at the classroom level after accounting for the predictors
included in the models.
To evaluate the joint and unique contributions of the various emergent literacy skills to
spelling, three multilevel models were evaluated (see Table 4). Guided by previous research,
Model 1 included alphabet knowledge, print knowledge, and phonological awareness. Name
writing was entered in Model 2 and letter writing was added in Model 3. Children’s alphabet
knowledge, print knowledge, and blending skills were positively and uniquely related to
spelling (ps < .03), but elision was not (ps > .18; see Models 1 – 3). Name writing was
positively related to spelling after accounting for the variables in Model 1 (see Model 2);
however, name writing was no longer related to spelling once letter writing was taken into
Puranik et al. Page 9
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
consideration (see Model 3). In contrast, letter writing was uniquely related to spelling (p <
0.001) even when taking name writing and alphabet knowledge, print knowledge, and
phonological awareness into account (see Model 3). The predictors in Models 1 – 3 for the
spelling outcomes explained 36%, 37%, and 39% of the variance, respectively. Similar to
the results for name writing and letter writing, results for the variance components for
spelling suggested that there was statistically significant variation in the observed outcome
at the child level after accounting for the predictors included in the models.
Discussion
The goals of this study were to examine the shared and unique contributions of emergent
literacy skills to name-writing, letter-writing, and spelling skills, as well as the concurrent
interrelations between these writing skills in preschool children. The analyses revealed that
print knowledge and letter writing were both uniquely related to children’s name-writing
skills. In addition, print knowledge, alphabet knowledge, and name writing made unique
contributions to children’s letter-writing skills. Both name-writing and letter-writing skills,
respectively, made significant contributions to spelling after accounting for age, parental
education, print knowledge, phonological knowledge, and letter-name and letter-sound
knowledge. However, only letter-writing ability made a significant unique contribution to
the prediction of spelling when both letter-writing and name-writing skills were considered
together. This was the first study to date to examine simultaneously the shared and unique
contributions of an extensive array of emergent literacy skills to spelling in preschool
children.
Predictors of Name Writing
Young writers in the present study showed remarkable skill concerning writing their names,
a finding consistent with results of other studies of name writing in preschool children (e.g.,
Bloodgood, 1999; Both-de Vries & Bus, 2008, 2010; Levin et al., 2005; Welsch et al.,
2003). Our results indicated that children’s name-writing ability is dependent on their print
knowledge and their letter-writing skills. These findings are consistent with the findings of
Bloodgood (1999) who reported high correlations between name writing and letter writing.
Our results are also consistent with the Welsch et al. (2003) study, which showed that
children’s name-writing ability was closely linked to their print-related knowledge. Whereas
the simple correlational analyses appear to be consistent with prior research, more
sophisticated analyses of the data reveal a different picture. For example, Welsch et al.
reported that children’s name-writing ability was closely linked to their letter-name
recognition, and Blair and Savage (2006) found that children’s name-writing ability was
closely linked to their letter-sound knowledge. Although children’s alphabet knowledge
(letter-name and letter-sound) was positively related to their name-writing abilities in this
study, alphabet knowledge was not a significant predictor once letter-writing skill was
considered. This result suggests that the contribution of alphabet knowledge to name writing
is largely shared with letter writing. Neither the Welsch et al. study nor the Blair and Savage
study included letter writing in their assessments. Finally, our results are not consistent with
Blair and Savage who reported that phonological awareness significantly and uniquely
contributed to children’s name-writing abilities. One reason for the differences in findings
may have to do with the different tasks used to measure PA. In the Blair and Savage study,
children’s knowledge of onset-rime was assessed, whereas in this study, examination of PA
included blending and elision tasks. A second and perhaps more important reason is that we
examined a comprehensive set of emergent literacy skills and their contribution to name
writing simultaneously using multi-level modeling; hence, we were able to clarify the joint
and unique concurrent contributions of specific emergent literacy skills to name writing.
Puranik et al. Page 10
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Predictors of Letter Writing
As noted previously, examination of letter writing has received little attention, and we are
unaware of any previous studies that have examined the component skills that contribute to
letter-writing skills in preschool children. Findings of this study indicated that children’s
print knowledge, alphabet knowledge, and name-writing skills contribute to their letter-
writing skills. To be able to write letters, children need to understand that print conveys
meaning and have alphabet knowledge. Writing one’s name is a child’s first attempt at
writing letters and provides children practice in letter writing. Perhaps children with more
advanced name-writing skills have more knowledge about print and are more likely to be
motivated to learn to write letters and to learn about letter names and letter sounds.
Alternatively, children who know more letter names and letter sounds are more likely to
learn how to write their names or write letters. Additionally, children who know more about
print conventions--perhaps due to frequent exposure to print and literacy-related activities--
may be more motivated to learn to about letter names and letter sounds, write letters, and to
write their names. This might help explain the statistically significant variation observed at
the child level for the letter writing and the name-writing outcomes.
Of particular note was the finding that alphabet knowledge (as measured by the TERA-3)
made a significant contribution to letter writing but alphabet knowledge was not a
significant contributor to name writing. This finding may be due to the fact that letter
writing encompasses letter-name knowledge but includes the added dimension of not only
being able to match letters to their names but also being able to produce them. However,
with regard to name writing, researchers have suggested that children initially learn their
names as logograms, as strings of letters, or write their names by rote (Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1982; Villuame & Wilson, 1989). Our results are consistent with research
findings indicating that although children know how to write their names, it does not
necessarily mean that they can name the letters (Drouin & Harmon, 2009) or know the
sounds of the letters contained in their names (Treiman & Broderick, 1998).
Predictors of Spelling
The multilevel analyses examining the component skills that underlie preschooler’s spelling
abilities indicated that letter-writing skills, alphabet knowledge, print knowledge, and
blending skills were unique contributors to spelling. This result aligns well with the
requirements of spelling. Spelling a word requires a child to have an understanding of how
print functions, knowledge of letter-name and letter-sound relationships, the ability to write
specific letters, and, finally, blending skills to put the sounds together to write out the word.
The positive roles of alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness (blending) are
consistent with previous findings (e.g., Cassar, Treiman, Moats, Pollo, & Kessler, 2005;
McBride-Chang, 1999; Moats, 2005). However, the results of this study extend the findings
of previous research by delineating the important and unique role of letter writing to
spelling. The ability to write letters has an impact on a child’s spelling proficiency over and
above their alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness skills.
The importance of letter writing with older children has been well established. Spelling and
composing in later grades requires students to write the letters of the alphabet fluently and
automatically so that cognitive resources can be used for higher-order writing processes
such as text generation (e.g., Berninger, 1999; Berninger et al., 1992, 1994; Graham et al.,
1997). As hypothesized, our results demonstrate that letter writing is an important ability in
determining spelling proficiency in preschool children, and has significant implications for
writing proficiency, even for emergent writers.
Puranik et al. Page 11
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The findings of this study raise questions about the sufficiency of the current definition of
the term alphabet knowledge at least within the context of examining early writing. Letter
writing requires that the motor aspects of handwriting become associated and integrated
with the perceptual aspects of alphabet knowledge; therefore, letter writing may capture
different elements or more sophisticated levels of alphabet knowledge than does the manner
in which it has been traditionally measured (i.e., letter-name and/or letter-sound
identification tasks). Thus, writing letters (compared to recognizing letters) may more
explicitly draw attention to both the names and the sounds of the letters. In fact, some
evidence for this comes from intervention studies. Longcamp, Zerbato-Poudou, and Velay
(2004) compared teaching letter recognition in preschool children through handwriting and
typing letters. They found that handwriting training resulted in better letter recognition that
typing training; writing out letters drew greater attention to the names of the letter.
Similarly, Cunningham and Stanovich (1990) showed that having children write out words
lead to better spelling performance compared to conditions that involved typing on a
computer or manipulating letter tiles. The message here is not that letter writing is more
important than letter-name or letter-sound knowledge but, rather, it is to draw attention to
the fact that previous investigations examining the relationship between alphabet knowledge
and spelling or writing have not included letter writing. Our results indicate that letter
writing has an impact on spelling and writing from a very early age and at the very least
encourages further research on letter writing.
Past research has highlighted the important role of name writing in the development of
children’s spelling skills. For example, the NELP reported a moderate relationship of .36
between children’s name writing and spelling. Other research has shown that children with
more advanced name-writing skills spell more words (e.g., Bloodgood, 1999; Both-de Vries
& Bus, 2010; Levin et al., 2005; Treiman & Broderick, 1998) leading some to suggest that
name writing be used as a screener for children’s literacy skills (Haney, 2002; Haney,
Bissonnette, & Behnken, 2003). However, previous studies examining the relationship
between name writing and spelling have not included or examined children’s letter-writing
skills. A moderate correlation between name writing and spelling (r = .46) was also noted in
this study, however, as hypothesized, our results also indicated that name writing did not
make a unique contribution to spelling after accounting for letter-writing. As previously
mentioned, researchers have noted incongruities in children’s knowledge regarding the
letters in their name and that it is not unusual for children to write their names by rote.
However, one cannot begin to spell by learning a string of letters by rote or if lacking
knowledge about letter names and letter sounds. Being able to spell requires an
understanding of the relationship between letters and the symbolic function letters serve
(i.e., the alphabetic principle; Bialystok, 1995). Knowing how to write one’s name appears
to be an important achievement; it is often the first word children learn to write, and at the
start of the writing process, children use the first letters of their names to spell other words
(e.g., Both-de Vries & Bus, 2008 e.g., Both-de Vries & Bus, 2010). However, name writing
requires children to learn only the few letters in their names and does not mean that children
are prepared for the more challenging task of spelling words. One needs to write more than
just one’s name to begin to develop the knowledge base that aids spelling development.
Name writing reflects knowledge of some letters rather than a broader knowledge of letters
that may be needed to support early spelling. Thus, name writing may provide the initial
motivation to begin the writing process, promote the development of writing in general, and
capture important variance from emergent literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness, print
knowledge, and alphabet knowledge), but it is children’s letter writing, phonological
awareness (namely blending), letter-name and letter-sound knowledge, and print knowledge
that uniquely contribute to their spelling ability.
Puranik et al. Page 12
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Limitations and Future Directions
Although these data present compelling information concerning the emergent literacy skills
that contribute to spelling in preschool children, a few limitations do exist. Results for the
variance components of the multilevel models for spelling indicated that there was
statistically significant variation in the observed outcome at the child after accounting for the
predictors included in the models. Child-level factors could include other cognitive-
linguistic skills such as IQ, orthographic awareness and oral language that have been shown
to play an important role in the development of spelling in beginning writers (Kim, 2010;
Ouellette & Sénéchal, 2008). Understanding how orthographic awareness develops and
including these cognitive-linguistic skills when examining spelling in preschool children has
the potential of improving our understanding of spelling development. It should be noted
that some of the questions included in our print knowledge task might have tapped
orthographic knowledge. For example, we had questions such as “Which is the correct way
to hold a pencil” and “Which is the best way to write milk?” The former may have tapped
print awareness whereas the later may have tapped orthographic knowledge. Assessing the
contributions of these two types of knowledge separately will add to our understanding
about the development of spelling and writing.
Our assessment of alphabet knowledge included the alphabet subtest of the TERA-3. In this
subtest, letter name knowledge and letter sound knowledge were assessed jointly and no
separate scores are available for these measures. In future investigations, separating these
two skills may shed light on their separate contributions to spelling, especially given that
different factors are involved in their learning and that they have different developmental
patterns (Foulin, 2005; McBride-Chang, 1999; Treiman & Broderick, 1998).
This study was cross-sectional, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the
developmental nature of the relationship between emergent literacy skills and spelling (e.g.,
correlation versus causation). Also, the relationship between emergent literacy skills and
emergent writing skills (name writing, letter writing, and spelling) could vary depending on
when these skills were measured-beginning or end of preschool. Future studies that examine
these skills longitudinally or at more than one time point during the preschool year will be
crucial in understanding how early reading and writing skills contribute to the development
of spelling longitudinally or bidirectionally.
Three potential criticisms of this study, one of which pertains to the assessment of spelling,
must be mentioned. It could be argued that, given the age of the children, some children may
have known the shape of a letter but may have had difficulty writing the letter. Assessing
word spelling through alternative measures such as oral spelling or using letter tiles to spell
may have helped circumvent some of those difficulties. However, in a recent study, Puranik
and Apel (2010) reported their findings using such alternative measures in which children’s
spelling was compared using letter tiles, spelling orally, and spelling by writing. Their
results indicated that the output modality did not affect children’s ability to spell; children
who could spell did equally well in the oral, tile, and written spelling conditions.
The second potential criticism concerns the different scales used to score name writing and
spelling-the two writing tasks in this study. The scoring for both items was based on current
scales available, which have been used widely by researchers (e.g., Levin et al., 2005;
Tangel & Blachman, 1992; Welsch et al., 2003). Spelling was scored on a developmental
scoring system that credits children’s attempts to represent phonemes in various word
positions (initial, medial, final). Also, all children were administered the same spelling
words with simple grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Children’s names however, could
vary in length and complexity and do not always follow straightforward grapheme-phoneme
Puranik et al. Page 13
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
mappings (e.g., Samantha, John, IIona). Unlike spelling, it is not appropriate to measure
grapheme-phoneme correspondences in children’s names since evidence suggests that
children do not use knowledge of letter-sound correspondences to write their names. They
use a different strategy for name writing and inventing spellings of other words. The
difference in the two writing tasks necessitates the use of different scoring scales.
Third, some ceiling effects were noted for the name writing task. The reduced variance in
name writing may have contributed to its nonsignificant contribution to spelling.
Considering the diverse nature of the sample, some ceiling effect in the name writing task
demonstrates remarkable skills in preschooler’s abilities to write their first names. Our
results are consistent with those reported in other studies (Bloodgood, 1999; Both-de Vries
& Bus, 2008, 2010; Cabell, Justice, Zucker, & McGinty, 2009; Levin et al., 2005, Welsch et
al., 2003) in that children do remarkably well on this measure compared to other emergent
literacy measures. For example, in theBoth-de Vries and Bus (2010) study, of the 60
participants, 39 (65%) “wrote their name readably, i.e., they produced at least invented
spelling” (p. 179) of their names (for example, Slva for Silva). Furthermore, correlations
between name writing and other emergent literacy variables obtained in this study are
similar to those obtained in other studies including those reported in the NELP report
(Lonigan et al., 2008). Even so, given the fact that older children were substantially more
likely to score at or near ceiling levels on the name-writing task, potentially resulting in
attenuated correlations between scores on the name-writing measure and other measures, we
compared the correlations obtained between name writing and various emergent literacy
measures for the younger and older children. As noted, none of these differences were
statistically significant. Consequently, there were only limited effects of children scoring at
or near ceiling on the name-writing measures in terms of the relations between measures.
Perhaps the name-writing measure is not a good indicator of early literacy/writing skills--
both because of its empirical relations with other measures and because name writing is a
task that is mastered relatively early in the process of learning to read and write. The use of a
name-writing measure for predicting may be better suited to a time period earlier in the
preschool year when these skills are just developing. Comparing the contributions of
emergent literacy skills to spelling at the beginning and the end of the preschool year might
help clarify this issue.
Conclusion
Writing development is not an all-or-none phenomenon. Perhaps knowing how to write
one’s name signals the start of a developing knowledge of the alphabetic principle (Adams,
1990; Both-de Vries & Bus, 2008; Treiman & Broderick, 1998); whereas knowing how to
write letters beyond or apart from one’s name may signal an increased sensitivity to and
knowledge about the alphabetic principle. The results of this study lend further support to
the fact that letter writing is a good reflection of the beginnings of orthographic knowledge
(Puranik & Apel, 2010), and this knowledge has been shown to be important to spelling in
older children (Abbott & Berninger, 1993; Kim, 2010; Ouellette & Senechal, 2008). Our
results suggest that children’s abilities to write their names serve as a proxy for their letter-
writing abilities. Thus, it is not name writing per se that is important; rather, it is the fact that
to be able to write one’s name, one has to be able to write letters. Children’s letter-writing
skills may be a better indicator of children’s emergent literacy and developing conventional
literacy skills (i.e., spelling) than are their name-writing skills at the end of the preschool
year. The results of this study suggest that letter-writing instruction and activities that
encourage writing letters (beyond the letters in one’s name) at the preschool level may prove
to be promising avenues for interventions to enhance emerging literacy skills.
Puranik et al. Page 14
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Acknowledgments
Support for carrying out this research was provided in part by grant P50 HD052120 from the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, and by a Postdoctoral Training Grant R305B050032 and grant
R305A080488 from the Institute of Education Sciences. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not
represent views of the funding agencies.
References
Abbott RD, Berninger VW. Structural equation modeling of relationships among development skills
and writing skills in primary- and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology.
1993; 85:478–508.
Adams, MJ. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990.
Anthony JL, Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Driscoll K, Phillips BM, Bloomfield BG. Structure of preschool
phonological sensitivity: Overlapping sensitivity to rhyme, words, syllables, and phonemes. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology. 2002; 82:65–92. [PubMed: 12081460]
Badian N. The prediction of good and poor reading before kindergarten entry: A 4-year follow-up. The
Journal of Special Education. 1982; 16:309–318.
Berninger V. Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing:
Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disabilities Quarterly. 1999; 22:99–112.
Berninger V, Abbott R, Abbott S, Jones J, Wolf B, Gould L, …Apel K. Early development of
language by hand: Composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections; three letter-writing
modes; and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2006; 29:61–92. [PubMed:
16390289]
Berninger V, Cartwright A, Yates C, Swanson HL, Abbott R. Developmental skills related to writing
and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades: Shared and unique variance. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1994; 6:161–196.
Berninger VW, Yates C, Cartwright A, Rutberg J, Remy E, Abbott R. Lower-level developmental
skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1992; 4:257–280.
Bialystok E. Making concepts of print symbolic: Understanding how writing represents language. First
Language. 1995; 15:317–338.
Bickel, R. Multilevel Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guildford Press; 2007.
Blair R, Savage R. Name writing but not environmental print recognition is related to letter-sound
knowledge and phonological awareness in pre-readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal. 2006; 19:991–1016.
Bloodgood J. What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition. Reading Research
Quarterly. 1999; 34:342–367.
Bond GL, Dykstra R. The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading and
Writing. 1967; 5:69–85.
Both-de Vries A, Bus AG. Name writing: A first step to phonetic writing? Does the name have a
special role in understanding the symbolic function of writing? Literacy Teaching and Learning.
2008; 12:37–55.
Both-de Vries A, Bus AG. The proper name as starting point for basic reading skills. Reading and
Writing. 2010; 23:173–187. [PubMed: 20157350]
Cabell R, Justice L, Zucker T, McGinty A. Emergent name-writing abilities of preschool-age children
with language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2009; 40:53–66.
Cassar M, Treiman R. The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s knowledge of double
letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89:631–644.
Cassar M, Treiman R, Moats L, Pollo T, Kessler B. How do spellings of children with dyslexia
compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
2005; 18:27–49.
Chaney C. Preschool language and metalinguistic skills are linked to reading success. Applied
Psycholinguistics. 1998; 19:433–446.
Clay, M. What did I write?. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann; 1975.
Puranik et al. Page 15
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Cunningham A, Stanovich K. Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 1990; 82:159–162.
Drouin M, Harmon J. Name writing and letter knowledge in preschoolers: Incongruities in skills and
the usefulness of name writing as a developmental indicator. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.
2009; 24:263–270.
Ehri L. The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading
disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1989; 22:356–365. [PubMed: 2738469]
Ehri L. Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders.
2000; 20:19–36.
Ehri L. Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2005;
9:167–188.
Ehri L, Wilce L. Does learning to spell help beginner learn to read words? Reading Research
Quarterly. 1987; 18:47–65.
Ferreiro, E.; Teberosky, A., editors. Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH: Heinemann; 1982.
Foulin J. Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read? Reading and
Writing. 2005; 18:129–155.
Fox B, Saracho O. Emergent writing: Young children solving the written language puzzle. Early Child
Development and Care. 1990; 56:81–90.
Graham S, Berninger V, Abbott R, Abbott S, Whitaker D. The role of mechanics in composing of
elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology.
1997; 89:170–182.
Haney M. Name writing: A window into the emergent literacy skills of young children. Early
Childhood Education Journal. 2002; 30:101–105.
Haney M, Bisonnette V, Behnken KL. The relationship between name writing and early literacy skills
in kindergarten children. Child Study Journal. 2003; 33:99–115.
Hildreth G. Developmental sequences in name writing. Child Development. 1936; 7:291–303.
Juel C. Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988; 80:437–447.
Justice L, Pence K, Bowles R, Wiggins A. An investigation of four hypotheses concerning the order by
which 4-year-old children learn the alphabet letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2006;
21:374–389.
Kim YS. Componential skills of spelling in Korean. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2010; 14:137–158.
Levin H, Ehri L. Young children’s ability to read and spell their own and classmates’ names: The role
of letter knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2009; 13:249–273.
Levin, I.; Aram, D. Children’s names contribute to early literacy: A linguistic and social perspective.
In: Rabid, D.; Bat-Shyldkrot, H., editors. Perspectives on language and language development.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer; 2004. p. 219-239.
Levin I, Both-de Vries D, Aram D, Bus A. Writing starts with own name writing: From scribbling to
conventional spelling in Israeli and Dutch children. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2005; 26:463–477.
Levin I, Bus A. How is emergent writing based on drawing? Analysis of children’s products and their
sorting by children and mothers. Developmental Psychology. 2003; 39:891–905. [PubMed:
12952401]
Lieberman, E. Dissertations Abstracts International. Vol. 46/12. 1985. Name writing and the preschool
child. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1985); p. 3593A
Lomax R, McGee L. Young children’s concepts about print and reading: Toward a model of work
reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly. 1987; 22:237–256.
Longcamp M, Zerbato-Poudou M, Velay J. The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in
preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica. 2004;
119:67–79. [PubMed: 15823243]
Lonigan, CJ.; Schatschneider, C.; Westberg, L. Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy; 2008. Identification of children’s
skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. National Early
Puranik et al. Page 16
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Literacy Panel; p. 55-106.Retrieved from
http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html
Lonigan, C.; Wagner, R.; Torgesen, J.; Rashotte, C. Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological &
Print Processing (Pre-CTOPP). Department of Psychology, Florida State University; 2002.
Lonigan, CJ.; Wagner, RK.; Torgesen, JK.; Rashotte, C. Test of Preschool Early Literacy. Austin, TX:
ProEd; 2007.
Mann V. Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1993;
26:259–269. [PubMed: 8515190]
Martens PA. Mommy, how do you write—Sarah?: The role of name writing in one child’s literacy.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 1999; 14:5–15.
Martins MA, Silva PA. The impact of invented spelling in phonemic awareness. Learning and
Instruction. 2006; 16:41–56.
Mason J. When children begin to read: An exploration of four year old children’s letter and word
reading competencies. Reading Research Quarterly. 1980; 15:203–227.
Mason, JM.; Stewart, JP. Emergent literacy assessment for instructional use in kindergarten. In:
Morrow, LM.; Smith, JK., editors. Assessment for instruction in early literacy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall; 1990. p. 155-175.
McBride-Chang C. The development of invented spelling. Early Education & Development. 1998;
9:147–160.
McBride-Chang C. The ABCs of the ABCs: The development of letter-name and letter-sound
knowledge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1999; 45:285–308.
Moats LC. How spelling supports reading. American Educator. 2005; 29(4):12–22.
Molfese V, Beswick J, Molnar A, Jacobi-Vessels J. Alphabetic skills in preschool: A preliminary study
of letter naming and writing. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2006; 25:5–19. [PubMed:
16390286]
Morris D, Bloodgood J, Lomax R, Perney J. Developmental steps in learning to read: A longitudinal
study in kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research Quarterly. 2003; 38:302–328.
Ouellette GP, Sénéchal M. A window into early literacy: Exploring the cognitive and linguistic
underpinnings of invented spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2008; 12:195–219.
Phillips, B.; Lonigan, C.; Graham, L. Now I know my ABC’s: Alphabetic order and first name predict
letter knowledge development in young children. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of
the Society of the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR); Vancouver, Canada. 2006 July.
Puranik C, Apel K. Effect of assessment task and letter writing ability on preschool children’s spelling
performance. Assessment for Effective Intervention. 2010; 36:46–56.
Puranik C, Lonigan C. From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children’s developing knowledge of
written language. Reading and Writing. 2010 Advance online publication. 10.1007/
s11145-009-9220-8
Reid, DK.; Hresko, WP.; Hammill, DD. Test of Early Reading Ability. 3. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2001.
Richgels D. Invented spelling ability and printed word learning in kindergarten. Reading Research
Quarterly. 1995; 30:96–109.
Richgels, DJ.; Barnhart, JE. Literacy development in preschool and kindergarten children: Patterns
between groups and across tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading
Conference; San Antonio, TX. 1992 December.
Saracho O. Developing sequences in three-year-old children’s writing. Early Child Development and
Care. 1990; 56:1–10.
Shatil E, Share DL, Levin I. On the contribution of kindergarten writing to grade 1 literacy: A
longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2000; 21:1–21.
Silva C, Martens MA. Relations between children’s invented spelling and development of
phonological awareness. Educational Psychology. 2003; 23:3–16.
Snow, C.; Burns, MS.; Griffin, P. Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C:
National Academy Press; 1998.
Stage SA, Wagner R. Development of young children’s phonological and orthographic knowledge as
revealed by their spelling. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28:287–296.
Puranik et al. Page 17
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Stevenson HW, Newman RS. Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes in mathematics and
reading. Child Development. 1986; 57:646–659. [PubMed: 3720396]
Storch S, Whitehurst G. Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a
longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology. 2002; 38:934–947. [PubMed:
12428705]
Strickland DS, Shanahan T. Laying the groundwork for literacy. Educational Leadership. 2004; 61:7–
77.
Sulzby, E. Kindergarteners as writers and readers. In: Farr, M., editor. Advances in writing research,
Volume 1. Children’s writing development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1985. p. 127-199.
Tangel DM, Blachman BA. Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on kindergarten children’s
invented spelling. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1992; 24:233–261.
Tolchinsky-Landsmann L, Levin I. Writing in preschoolers: An age-related analysis. Applied
Psycholinguistics. 1985; 6:319–339.
Tolchinsky-Landsmann L, Levin I. Writing in four-to-six-year olds: Representation of semantic and
phonetic similarities and differences. Journal of Child Language. 1987; 14:127–144. [PubMed:
3558520]
Treiman, R. Knowledge about letters as a foundation for reading and spelling. In: Joshi, RM.; Aaron,
PG., editors. Handbook of orthography and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. p. 581-599.
Treiman R, Broderick V. What’s in a name: Children’s knowledge about the letters in their own
names. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1998; 70:97–116. [PubMed: 9729451]
Villaume S, Wilson L. Preschool children’s explorations of letters in their own names. Applied
Psycholinguistics. 1989; 10:283–300.
Wagner RK, Torgesen JK. The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition
of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin. 1987; 101:192–212.
Wagner, R.; Torgesen, J.; Rashotte, C. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed; 1999.
Walpole S, Chow SM, Justice L. Literacy achievements during kindergarten: Examining key
contributions in an at-risk sample. Early Education and Development. 2004; 15:245–264.
Welsch J, Sullivan A, Justice L. That’s my letter! What preschoolers’ name writing representations tell
us about emergent literacy knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research. 2003; 35:757–776.
Whitehurst G, Lonigan C. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development. 1998;
69:848–872. [PubMed: 9680688]
Puranik et al. Page 18
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Puranik et al. Page 19
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and partial correlations among measures controlling for age
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Spelling ---
2. Letter writing .63 ---
3. Name writing .46 .60 ---
4. Alphabet knowledge .61 .68 .41 ---
5. Print Knowledge .56 .59 .54 .56 ---
6. Blending .50 .43 .41 .45 .52 ---
7. Elision .44 .44 .40 .40 .55 .58 ---
8. Parental Ed. Imputed (w/o imputation n = 189) .21 (.21**) .22 (.20**) .12* (.08ns).25 (.26) .29 (.32) .22 (.23) .13* (.13ns)
Mean (SD) 17.26 (10.53) 10.60 (6.91) 7.53 (2.37) 7.60 (5.99) 13.90 (5.16) 14.85 (4.37) 10.58 (4.37)
Range 0 – 42 0 – 20 0 – 9 3 – 20 1 – 24 0 – 21 0 – 18
Total possible 42 20 9 29 24 21 18
α.96 .93 .96 .92 .84 .84 .85
Note. N = 296, except for Elision for which N = 295. Except where noted, all correlation coefficients are statistically significant at p < .001 level (nsp > .08; *p < .05; **p < .01).
Parental Ed. = Reported level of parental education completed. α = internal consistency of scores.
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Puranik et al. Page 20
Table 2
Multilevel modeling results for name writing
Model 1 Model 2
Measures Coefficient (s.e.) p Coefficient (s.e.) p
Fixed effects
Intercept 0.40 (1.86) 0.83 1.63 (1.75) 0.35
Chronological age 0.06 (0.03) 0.06 0.04 (0.03) 0.21
Parent Education −0.12 (0.09) 0.17 −0.12 (0.08) 0.15
Alphabet knowledge 0.05 (0.02) 0.03 −0.03 (0.03) 0.19
Print knowledge 0.17 (0.03) 0.001 0.12 (0.03) 0.001
Blending 0.06 (0.03) 0.056 0.06 (0.03) 0.053
Elision 0.03 (0.03) 0.34 0.02 (0.03) 0.62
Letter writing 0.15 (0.02) 0.001
Variance components
Classroom 0.15 (0.12) 0.23 0.07 (0.09) 0.44
Child 3.34 (0.29) 0.001 2.94 (0.26) 0.001
Pseudo R20.29 0.38
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Puranik et al. Page 21
Table 3
Multilevel modeling results for letter writing
Model 1 Model 2
Measures Coefficient (s.e.) p Coefficient (s.e.) p
Fixed effects
Intercept −9.13 (4.48) 0.04 −9.65 (4.18) 0.02
Chronological age 0.17 (0.08) 0.03 0.12 (0.07) 0.11
Parent Education −0.05 (0.23) 0.84 0.07 (0.21) 0.73
Alphabet knowledge 0.54 (0.06) 0.001 0.49 (0.07) 0.001
Print knowledge 0.34 (0.07) 0.001 0.19 (0.07) 0.007
Blending 0.03 (0.08) 0.75 −0.03 (0.07) 0.70
Elision 0.09 (0.08) 0.26 0.07 (0.08) 0.36
Name-writing 0.88 (0.13) 0.001
Variance components
Classroom 2.03 (1.05) 0.053 1.47 (1.72) 0.10
Child 18.90 (1.85) 0.001 16.59 (1.45) 0.001
Pseudo R20.46 0.52
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Puranik et al. Page 22
Table 4
Multilevel modeling results for spelling
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Measures Coefficient (s.e.) p Coefficient (s.e.) p Coefficient (s.e.) p
Fixed effects
Intercept −7.14 (7.27) 0.33 −7.54 (7.22) 0.30 −3.85 (7.13) 0.59
Chronological age 0.12 (0.12) 0.33 0.09 (0.12) 0.46 0.05 (0.12) 0.71
Parent Education 0.16 (0.37) 0.66 0.23 (0.37) 0.54 0.20 (0.36) 0.58
Alphabet knowledge 0.60 (0.09) 0.001 0.58 (0.09) 0.001 0.39 (0.10) 0.001
Print knowledge 0.43 (.012) 0.001 0.35 (0.12) 0.005 0.27 (0.12) 0.02
Blending 0.32 (0.13) 0.01 0.29 (0.13) 0.02 0.31 (0.13) 0.02
Elision 0.18 (0.13) 0.18 0.16 (0.13) 0.22 0.14 (0.13) 0.28
Name-writing 0.51 (0.23) 0.03 0.17 (0.24) 0.48
Letter writing 0.38 (0.10) 0.001
Variance components
Classroom 7.41 (3.35) 0.13 4.94 (2.49) 0.13 3.87 (2.24) 0.12
Child 49.24 (4.30) 0.001 48.63 (4.26) 0.001 46.75 (4.10) 0.001
Pseudo R20.36 0.37 0.39
Early Child Res Q. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 September 1.
