Johnson, D., & Van Brackle, L. (2012). Linguistic discrimination in writing assessment: How raters react to African American “errors,” ESL errors, and standard English errors on a state-mandated writing exam. Assessing Writing, 17, 35-54. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.10.001

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Building a Better Mousetrap: Replacing Subjective Writing Rubrics with More Empirically-Sound Alternatives for EFL Learners

  AUTHORS: Andrew D. Schenck, Eoin Daly

  KEYWORDS: Writing Rubrics; Writing Evaluation; Cohesion; Grammar; Word Frequency

  JOURNAL NAME: Creative Education, Vol.3 No.8, December 21, 2012

  ABSTRACT: Although writing rubrics can provide valuable feedback, the criteria they use are often subjective, which compels raters to employ their own tacit biases. The purpose of this study is to see if discreet empirical characteristics of texts can be used in lieu of the rubric to objectively assess the writing quality of EFL learners. The academic paragraphs of 38 participants were evaluated according to several empirically calculable criteria related to cohesion, content, and grammar. Values were then compared to scores obtained from holistic scoring by multiple raters using a multiple regression formula. The resulting correlation between variables (R = .873) was highly significant, suggesting that more empirical, impartial means of writing evaluation can now be used in conjunction with technology to provide student feedback and teacher training.