Effectiveness of a 10-Week Tier-1 Response to Intervention Program in Improving Fine Motor and Visual–Motor Skills in General Education Kindergarten Students

Ohl, Alisha; Graze, Hollie; Weber, Karen C.; Kenny, Sabrina; Salvatore, Christie; Wagreich, Sarah

doi:10.5014/ajot.2013.008110

Cited by 63 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only two studies (Axford et al, ; Ohl et al, ) evaluated interventions designed to develop fine motor control (see Table ). These sampled typically developing children aged 5–6 years, implemented interventions of approximately equal duration (9–10 weeks), but differed in implementation strategy (teacher‐led technology vs. multidisciplinary team) and intensity (150 vs. 30 min).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of outcomes were used across the studies (describable as measuring VMI, manual dexterity, and handwriting; as defined in Table ), with inconsistent results. Ohl et al () found significant improvement at post‐test for VMI and manual dexterity (measured by the Bruininks–Osteresky Test of Motor Proficiency 2nd Edition) but not for pen grip, whereas Axford et al () report no benefits to VMI but improvements in drawing (motor coordination subtest of the Beery–Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual‐Motor Integration). Axford et al () also implemented the Shore Handwriting Screen (Shore, ), with only one of its five outcomes (copying capital letters) significantly improving following intervention.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of motor skill domains were improved via a number of different interventional approaches, including fully inclusive and potentially less stigmatizing whole class approaches (Kennedy et al, ), as well as more targeted interventions for children with recognized motor difficulties. Although the majority of these interventions were teacher led, the use of technology such as iPads for motor skill instruction (Axford et al, ; Chang & Yu, ), and more interdisciplinary methods were also trialled (Case‐Smith, Holland, et al, ; Case‐Smith, Weaver, et al, ; Donica, ; Ohl et al, ). Such novel methods hold potential promise for widening access to support for children with motor difficulties, via the provision of more resource‐efficient and collaborative models of delivery (Hutton & Soan, ; Wilson & Harris, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only two studies (Axford et al, 2018;Ohl et al, 2013) evaluated interventions designed to develop fine motor control (see Table 4). These sampled typically developing children aged 5-6 years, implemented…”

Section: Fine Motor Skills Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of randomized and case‐controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of school‐based motor skill interventions in 3‐ to 12‐year‐old children

Eddy

Wood

Shire

et al. 2019

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Research suggests that children identified with impaired motor skills can respond well to intensive therapeutic interventions delivered via occupational and physical therapy services. There is, however, a need to explore alternative approaches to delivering interventions outside traditional referral‐based clinic settings because limited resources mean such health services often struggle to meet demand. This review sets out to systematically assess the evidence for and against school‐based interventions targeted at improving the motor skills of children aged between 3 and 12 years old. Method Five electronic databases were searched systematically (AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane, Medline, and PsycINFO) for peer‐reviewed articles published between January 2012 and July 2018. Studies were eligible if they implemented a school‐based motor skill intervention with a randomized or case‐controlled trial design that objectively measured motor skills as an outcome, which were not specific to an athletic or sporting skill. Participants had to be aged between 3 and 12 years old and free from neurological disorders known to affect muscle function. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results Twenty‐three studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies encompassed interventions targeted at training: fundamental movement skills, handwriting, fine, and global motor skills. The majority of these studies reported beneficial impact on motor function specifically, but some interventions also assessed subsequent impacts on activity and participation (but not well‐being). A number of the studies had methodological shortcomings that means these results need to be interpreted with caution. Conclusions Schools appear to be an effective setting for motor skill interventions, but the extent of benefit likely depends on the type of intervention. Moreover, confirmation is needed as to whether benefits extend beyond motor function into everyday activities, participation, and well‐being. Future research should include follow‐up measures to assess the longer term efficacy of school‐based interventions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fine Motor Skills Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of randomized and case‐controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of school‐based motor skill interventions in 3‐ to 12‐year‐old children

Eddy

Wood

Shire

et al. 2019

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Handwriting skills are the result of a multiplex integration of sensorimotor, cognitive, perceptual, visual and sensory systems that work together to accomplish a successful writing task (Hoy, Egan, & Feder, ; Lust & Donica, ; Mackay, McCluskey, & Mayes, ; Pfeiffer, Rai, Murray, & Brusilovskiy, ; Van Drempt, McCluskey, & Lannin, ). Early developmental stages in both preschool‐age and elementary school‐age children build the foundation for higher order processes required later in life, especially when students need to make longer sentences and produce complex compositions (Bazyk et al, ; Engel‐Yeger, Nagauker‐Yanuv, & Rosenblum, ; Lust & Donica, ; Ohl et al, ; Pfeiffer et al, ; Thompson, Mclaughlin, Derby, & Conley, ; Van Hartingsveldt, Groot, Aarts, & Nijhuis‐Van Der Sanden, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of occupational therapy intervention for handwriting skills in 4–6 year old children

Kadar

Yunus

Tan

et al. 2019

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Handwriting skills play a significant role in all stages of an individual's life. Writing interventions should be considered at a younger age to ensure proper development of writing skills. Hence, the aims of this study is to evaluate the current evidence of occupational therapy interventions in handwriting skills for 4–6 year old children. Methods Published literature was systematically searched according to PRISMA guidelines using specific key terms. Initial search identified 785 studies; however only seven met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for final review. Studies were methodologically appraised using the McMaster Critical Review Form–Quantitative Studies. Results The review found no randomised control trial study design pertaining to the reviewed area. However, it can be seen that occupational therapy interventions for writing skills in 4–6 year old children managed to increase the targeted skills. The results were similar across samples with or without disabilities. An effective integration of occupational therapy interventions into educational curriculum was found to save both time and cost. Conclusion The long‐term benefit from these interventions and the effects of these interventions on a broader spectrum of fine motor abilities need to be explored further with stronger research designs. However, the lack of studies adopting high level study designs, i.e., RCT designs means, results need to be approached with caution by occupational therapists when implementing handwriting skills intervention in practice.

show abstract

Occupational Therapy in Preschools: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge

Jasmin

Gauthier

Julien

et al. 2017

Early Childhood Educ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of a 10-Week Tier-1 Response to Intervention Program in Improving Fine Motor and Visual–Motor Skills in General Education Kindergarten Students

Abstract: This study provides preliminary evidence that a Tier 1 RtI program can improve fine motor and visual-motor skills in kindergarten students.

Cited by 63 publications

References 21 publications

A systematic review of randomized and case‐controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of school‐based motor skill interventions in 3‐ to 12‐year‐old children

A systematic review of randomized and case‐controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of school‐based motor skill interventions in 3‐ to 12‐year‐old children

A systematic review of occupational therapy intervention for handwriting skills in 4–6 year old children

Occupational Therapy in Preschools: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About