The DeCoste Writing Protocol in School OT: Handwriting vs. Keyboarding for AT Decisions

Few referrals land on a school OT's desk more often than "Should this student be typing instead?" The honest answer is that a keyboard only helps if the student can actually produce more, or better, writing with it. The DeCoste Writing Protocol (DWP) was built to answer that question with data from the student in front of you, for assistive technology (AT) and accommodation decisions.

Why and when school therapists use it

The DWP is an informal, formative protocol. It compares a student's own writing performance across handwriting and keyboarding, then looks at spelling and longer composition to sort out where the breakdown is: the hand, spelling, composing, or the tool (OT Potential, n.d.). One district describes its purpose as helping IEP teams "make informed decisions about accommodations for writing" (Montgomery County Public Schools, n.d.).

Typical reasons to reach for it:

• An IEP team is weighing keyboarding, word prediction, or speech to text.
• A student already has a scribe or typing accommodation and the team wants to recheck the fit.
• A student needs documentation of the most fluent writing modality for class or high stakes testing.
• You need a baseline to monitor progress after keyboarding instruction.

What it is

The DWP was written by Denise C. DeCoste, EdD, OTR (OT Potential, n.d.). It grew out of her earlier book, Assistive Technology Assessment: Developing a Written Productivity Profile, first published in 2004 (Closing the Gap, n.d.) by Don Johnston Inc. of Volo, Illinois (Montgomery County Public Schools, 2011). Many school OTs still know the older version as the "WPP."

The revised protocol is a searchable e-book of more than 400 pages with printable forms. It has three sections: background research on writing, the assessment protocol itself, and research based strategies for handwriting, keyboarding, spelling, composing, and technology accommodations (OCALI, n.d.).

Versions and availability: the revised edition was introduced as the "2014 Writing Protocol" (OCALI, n.d.), and later training materials carry a 2018 copyright (DeCoste et al., 2018). Don Johnston sold its edtech division to Texthelp in 2022 (Kuykendall, 2022), and Closing the Gap (n.d.) now lists Texthelp as the producer. Texthelp operates as Everway today, and the old donjohnston.com DWP page redirects to an Everway notice about retired products that does not name the DWP (Everway, n.d.). Confirm current availability and licensing before you buy.

Ages and grades: elementary, secondary, and adult levels (Closing the Gap, n.d.). Time: about 12 minutes for the core tasks (OT Potential, n.d.); plan more for spelling and extended writing. Who administers: OTs usually run the handwriting and keyboarding comparison, but the protocol is designed for multidisciplinary teams including OTs, SLPs, and educators (Grant Wood AEA, 2022; OCALI, n.d.).

What it measures

The protocol has four parts (Montgomery County Public Schools, n.d.; Manchester, 2018).

Parts 1 and 2: Handwriting and keyboarding comparison

The student completes the same five tasks by hand and then on a keyboard:

1. Alphabet: writing the alphabet from memory, a window into orthographic motor integration.
2. Best sentence copy: copying a sentence carefully.
3. Dictated sentence: writing a sentence the examiner dictates, which removes reading and composing demands but keeps spelling.
4. Fast sentence copy: copying as quickly as possible, so you can see how speed and legibility shift under pressure.
5. Composed text: generating original sentences after talking briefly about a topic of interest.

Tasks are timed in one minute intervals, and speed is converted to words per minute by dividing characters by five (DeCoste et al., 2018). You also note typing style, such as touch typing versus hunt and peck (Montgomery County Public Schools, 2011).

Part 3: Spelling analysis

A dictated word list (20 words in the version Manchester reviewed) is analyzed by type of linguistic knowledge: phonological, orthographic, morphological, and mental graphemic representations (Manchester, 2018). You look for an error pattern, which helps narrow down tools such as spell check or word prediction (DeCoste et al., 2018).

Part 4: Extended writing

A longer, on demand sample is rated with a six traits rubric (ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions), each on a 1 to 6 scale (Manchester, 2018). It shows how the student sustains longer text and hints at AT training needs (Montgomery County Public Schools, n.d.).

How it is scored and what it yields

This is the most important point for report writing: the DWP has no norms and produces no standard scores or percentile ranks. It compares the student against themselves across conditions (OT Potential, n.d.). What you get is:

• Raw rates (letters or words per minute) for each task, handwriting and keyboarding side by side.
• Observations of legibility, grasp, typing method, and fatigue.
• Spelling errors by category, including how many spell check could fix (Manchester, 2018).
• Six traits ratings for the extended sample.

The e-book summarizes published handwriting and typing speed research for context, but those figures come from outside studies, not a DWP norm sample (DeCoste et al., 2018). If you cite one, cite the original study.

The decision guidance is criterion based. The 2018 materials state that keyboarding should equal or exceed handwriting speed to be effective, that slow and effortful handwriting should prompt parallel keyboarding training, and that students should use their most fluent modality on high stakes tests (DeCoste et al., 2018).

A realistic school example

Maya (fictional) is a sixth grader with a learning disability in written expression who rarely finishes written work. The team asks whether a typing accommodation belongs in her IEP.

FICTIONAL data summary (raw rates only; the DWP yields no standard scores):

• Best sentence copy: handwriting 6 wpm; keyboarding 9 wpm.
• Dictated sentence: handwriting 5 wpm; keyboarding 8 wpm.
• Fast sentence copy: handwriting 8 wpm with legibility dropping sharply; keyboarding 11 wpm.
• Composed text: handwriting 4 wpm; keyboarding 7 wpm.
• Typing method: two finger hunt and peck, frequent looks at the keys.
• Spelling list: 11 of 20 correct; most errors orthographic and morphological; about half would be caught by spell check.
• Extended writing: six traits ratings of 2 to 3.

Keyboarding beats handwriting on every task despite an inefficient method, so a keyboarding accommodation is supported now. Spelling is a second barrier, and her trait ratings show she needs writing instruction alongside any tool.

How to write it up

The DeCoste Writing Protocol, an informal, criterion based assessment, was administered to compare Maya's handwriting and keyboarding across five parallel tasks and to analyze her spelling and extended writing. The protocol does not yield standard scores. Maya produced more text by keyboard than by hand on every task (for example, 7 versus 4 words per minute when composing), despite using a two finger typing method. Handwriting legibility decreased notably when she wrote quickly. Spelling errors were mainly orthographic and morphological, and about half would be corrected by spell check. Results support keyboarding with spell check for written assignments, keyboarding instruction with progress monitoring, and a trial of word prediction. Continued composition instruction is recommended.

What the research says

We found no published reliability or validity studies of the DWP itself, and OT Potential (n.d.) lists none. A practitioner review describes its use in a single case (Manchester, 2018). Treat it as a structured clinical protocol, not a psychometric test. The broader literature supports its logic:

• In 63 fifth graders, handwriting and keyboarding speed correlated after keyboarding lessons but accuracy did not, and the authors advise considering handwriting speed before recommending keyboarding (Preminger et al., 2004).
• In young adults, handwriting and keyboarding speed were moderately correlated but did not share underlying performance skills (Weintraub et al., 2010).
• Students in grades 2, 4, and 6 wrote longer essays faster by pen than by keyboard (Berninger et al., 2009). A keyboard is not automatically faster, which is why you measure.
• Eighth graders with faster keyboarding tended to benefit from computer testing in language arts, while slower typists did worse (Russell, 1999).

Practical cautions

• Do not report percentiles, standard scores, or "below average" labels. There is no norm sample.
• One minute samples are short. Pair them with classroom work samples and teacher report; one extended sample is not enough (DeCoste et al., 2018).
• Test on the device the student will actually use.
• A new typist may be slower than their handwriting today and still benefit after instruction. Recheck after training.
• If transcription is fine but composing is weak, the need is writing instruction, not a tool (DeCoste et al., 2018).

How it compares with related tools

• Evaluation Tool of Children's Handwriting (ETCH): handwriting legibility and speed for ages 6 to 12, with limited normative data from small samples (Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, n.d.). It describes handwriting; the DWP compares handwriting with keyboarding.
• WATI ASNAT: free team guides, including chapters on AT for writing and for composition (Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative, n.d.). ASNAT structures the AT process; the DWP supplies writing data within it.
• SETT Framework: Joy Zabala's AT decision making framework (Zabala, n.d.). DWP results feed the student and tasks discussion.

Bottom line

The DWP answers "Is typing actually better for this student?" with the student's own data, and shows whether spelling or composing is the bigger barrier. It yields raw rates, error patterns, and trait ratings, not norms. Report it that way and pair it with classroom evidence.

References

Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(3), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.2307/27740364

Closing the Gap. (n.d.). The DeCoste Writing Protocol [Resource directory listing]. https://www.closingthegap.com/guide-product/decoste-writing-protocol-2/

DeCoste, D. C., Ellis, E., & Wilson, L. (2018). The DeCoste Writing Protocol [Conference presentation slides]. https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/atomconference2018/ab/DWP%20Final%20MBAEA.pdf

Everway. (n.d.). Don Johnston product sunset. https://www.everway.com/education/dj-product-sunset/

Grant Wood AEA. (2022). DeCoste Writing Protocol [Professional learning course listing]. https://gwaea.org/2022/09/07/4379

Kuykendall, K. (2022, January 14). Literacy and accessibility software firm Texthelp acquiring Don Johnston Inc. edtech division. THE Journal. https://thejournal.com/articles/2022/01/14/literacy-and-accessibility-software-provider-texthelp-acquiring-don-johnston-inc,-d-,-edtech-division.aspx

Manchester, J. (2018). Assistive technology assessment: The updated and expanded DeCoste Writing Protocol (DWP). The Educational Therapist, 39(2), 18-19. https://www.aetonline.org/images/MEMBER_CENTER_Section/Journal_Docs/2018/39-2/08_TEL_TALKAssistive_Technology_Assessment-The_Updated_and_Expanded_DeCoste_Writing_Protocol_DWPJoan_Manchester.pdf

Montgomery County Public Schools. (2011). Developing a written productivity profile [Handout, revised March 2011]. https://supportforlearning.sd61.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2023/05/Handwriting-Productivity-Assessment.pdf

Montgomery County Public Schools. (n.d.). DeCoste Writing Protocol. High Incidence Accessible Technology. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/hiat-tech/resources/wpp

OCALI. (n.d.). DeCoste Writing Protocol [Product description]. Assistive Technology Internet Modules. https://atinternetmodules.org/storage/ocali-ims-sites/ocali-ims-atim/documents/DeCosteWritingProtocol.pdf

OT Potential. (n.d.). DeCoste Writing Protocol (DWP). https://otpotential.com/assessments/decoste-writing-protocol-dwp

Preminger, F., Weiss, P. L., & Weintraub, N. (2004). Predicting occupational performance: Handwriting versus keyboarding. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(2), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.58.2.193

Russell, M. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v7n20.1999

Shirley Ryan AbilityLab. (n.d.). Evaluation Tool of Children's Handwriting. Rehabilitation Measures Database. https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures/evaluation-tool-childrens-handwriting

Weintraub, N., Gilmour-Grill, N., & Weiss, P. L. (2010). Relationship between handwriting and keyboarding performance among fast and slow adult keyboarders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(1), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.64.1.123

Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative. (n.d.). Assessing students' needs for assistive technology. https://www.wati.org/free-publications/assessing-students-needs-for-assistive-technology/

Zabala, J. (n.d.). The SETT Framework. https://www.joyzabala.com/

‍

Speed up your evaluation report writing

You can use the scoring chart for this assessment and many others on Double Time Docs, our software that helps you write your evals significantly faster. Check it out!