Reading and Writing

, Volume 29, Issue 7, pp 1317–1336 | Cite as

Analysis of lexical quality and its relation to writing quality for 4th grade, primary school students in Chile

  • Gabriela Gómez Vera
  • Carmen Sotomayor
  • Percy Bedwell
  • Ana María Domínguez
  • Elvira Jéldrez


Few studies have addressed vocabulary quality in developing writing skill in Spanish. Even less addressed it within the Chilean educational system. The specific objective of this study was to characterize, using a comprehensive set of indicators, the quality of the vocabulary produced by Chilean 4th grade students. Based on a national writing survey, a sample of 2056 texts written by 685 students was collected (narrative, persuasive, and informative texts). Current literature defines lexical quality as a composite of diverse factors that, while distinct, are interrelated. To represent the properties of the vocabulary, a set of indicators were selected: (a) lexical diversity; (b) lexical sophistication; and (c) lexical density. Using multilevel modeling (students and schools as levels 1 and 2) to explain a global writing score we found that diversity was a significant determinant for narrative and persuasive texts, density was a significant determinant for the three genres and sophistication was a significant determinant for narrative and expository text. In addition, indicators related to gender and socioeconomic conditions were only significant determinants of narrative stories. The parts of speech most often used also varied according to the purpose of each text. In all genres, words had a short extension and were very sensitive to the input presented in the stimuli. These results imply a significant challenge to this education system: how to promote the development of vocabulary in all children in order to support language learning.


Writing Vocabulary Lexical diversity Lexical sophistication Lexical density 



Funding from PIA-CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence Project BF0003 and CONICYT Project of Insertion of Advanced Human Capital in the Academy No. 79112008 are gratefully acknowledged.

Supplementary material

11145_2016_9637_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 2721 kb)
11145_2016_9637_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 2721 kb)


  1. Aarnoutse, C., van Leeuwe, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Early literacy from a longitudinal perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(3), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdi, H. (2007). The Bonferronni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 103–107). Thousand Oaks, (CA): Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Agencia de Calidad de la Educación. (2013). Resultados Nacionales SIMCE Escritura 6° Básico 2012. Santiago de Chile: MINEDUC.Google Scholar
  4. Alamargot, D., & Fayol, M. (2009). Modelling the development of written composition. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 23–47). Thousand Oaks, (CA): Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ávila, R. (1991). Densidad léxica y adquisición del vocabulario: niños y adultos. In El español de América: actas del III congreso internacional del español en América: Valladolid, 3 a 9 de julio de 1989, (pp. 621–630). Valladolid: Consejería de Cultura y Turismo.Google Scholar
  6. Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 359–379). New York, (NY): Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  7. Bressoux, P. (2008). Modélisation statistique appliquée aux sciences sociales. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  8. Contreras, D., Sepúlveda, P., & Bustos, S. (2010). When schools are the ones that choose: The effects of screening in Chile. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1349–1368. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00735.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311. doi: 10.1177/0741088311410188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuetos, F. (2009). Psicología de la escritura. España: Wolters Kluwer Educación.Google Scholar
  11. Elacqua, G. (2012). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 444–453. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. doi: 10.2307/356600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster, J. J., Barkus, E., & Yavorsky, C. (2006). Understanding and using advanced statistics: A practical guide for students. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Great Britain: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2010). Investigating gender differences in reading. Educational Review, 62(2), 175–187. doi: 10.1080/00131911003637006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. López-Mezquita Molina, M. T. (2005). La evaluación de la competencia léxica: tests de vocabulario. Su fiabilidad y validez. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Granada, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Departamento de Filología Inglesa.Google Scholar
  20. Ma, X. (2008). Within-school gender gaps in reading, mathematics, and science literacy. Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 437–460. doi: 10.1086/588762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy, P., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.2.381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 51–68. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57–86. doi: 10.1177/0741088309351547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olinghouse, N., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22(5), 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olinghouse, N., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–214). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Porras, M. R. (2005). Una responsabilidad escolar olvidada: el desarrollo del componente léxico. Revista Educación, 29, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sánchez, V., Moyano, V., & Borzone, A. (2011). Demandas cognitivas de la escritura: comparación de dos situaciones de producción. Estudios pedagógicos, 37, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of international conference on new methods in language processing, (pp. 44–49). Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  33. Senechal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  34. Smith-Lock, K. M., Nickels, L., & Mortensen, L. (2009). Story writing skills of adults with a history language-impairment. Reading and Writing, 22(6), 713–734. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9138-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sotomayor, C., Gómez, G., Jeldrez, E., Bedwell, P., & Domínguez, A. (2014). Calidad de la Escritura en la Educación Básica. (Working Paper No 13). Santiago de Chile: CIAE. Retrieved from
  36. Treviño, E., Valdés, H., Castro, M., Costilla, R., Pardo, C., & Rivas, F. D. (2010). Factores asociados al logro cognitivo de los estudiantes de América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile: UNESCO – LLECE.Google Scholar
  37. Troia, G., Harbaugh, A., Shankland, R., Wolbers, K., & Lawrence, A. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 17–44. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Unidad de Currículum y Evaluación. (2009). Informe de Resultados de Escritura SIMCE 2008. Santiago de Chile: Ministerio de Educación.Google Scholar
  39. Valenzuela, J., Gómez, G., & Sotomayor, C. (2015). The role of reading engagement in improving national achievement: An analysis of Chile's 2000–2009 PISA results. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 28–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.011.
  40. Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8–25. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.536125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weisberg, S. (2005). Applied linear regression. New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yuan, Y. (2011). Multiple imputation using SAS software. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(6), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Advanced Research in EducationUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Arauco FundationSantiagoChile
  3. 3.SantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations