Written expression, Hooper, and blind rating.

Much research has supported the assertion of Hooper, et al.'s 1994 claims that specific stimuli perform better than others in eliciting well-developed written responses; however, previous research was conducted with raters who were aware of the hypotheses. The present study of 29 middle school children validated previous support for Hooper, et al.'s assertions by implementing blind rating and, once again, finding that significant differences between Hooper-like and non-Hooper-like prompts existed for structural items but not for items of mechanics.

Interrater reliability of the written expression subtest of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised: an adolescent and adult sample.

This study examined the interrater reliability of the measure of written expression in the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised. A sample more diverse in years of education and age than the normed population was used in this study. Fifty subjects from California, comprised of 72% females and 74% Caucasians, and ranging in age from 13 to 46, comprised the sample. Subjects were administered the "box" prompt from the PIAT-R Written Expression subtest (Level II). Interrater reliability for these scores was within the same range as the values provided in the manual once restriction of range was corrected.