Identifying Children with and without Handwriting Difficulties Using<i>The Print Tool</i>

Otr, Susan L. Chrisman Ma; Otr, Patricia A. Burtner PhD; Faota, L; Bcp, Catherine Candler PhD Otr; Neville, Marsha

doi:10.1080/19411243.2013.850960

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Size was determined to be a biasing factor because of the same size of visual cue but differences in scoring of size between first and second grade as discussed in the instrumentation. The tendency of a student to meet performance standards on the THS-R but not the Print Tool may be because the Print Tool expectations are not based on normative data, thus supporting previous research indicating the Print Tool has higher sensitivity than specificity (Chrisman et al, 2013). Therefore, it is essential that the occupational therapy practitioner use clinical reasoning and a holistic perspective in interpreting results of the Print Tool and determining the presence of handwriting deficits.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Chrisman, Burtner, Candler, and Neville (2013) investigated sensitivity and specificity of the Print Tool focusing on the tool’s ability to discriminate between children with and without handwriting deficits. A convenience sample of 38 children in first, second, and third grades were age-matched with 38 children in the control group.…”

Section: Handwriting Evaluation In Occupational Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Print Tool showed higher sensitivity than specificity, with more discriminatory power in first and second grade. Researchers suggested the Print Tool may be better used to evaluate children with known deficits to further guide intervention, due to lower specificity (Chrisman et al, 2013).…”

Section: Handwriting Evaluation In Occupational Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dysfunctional handwriting can be traced to insufficient individualization in handwriting instruction (Karlsdottir & Stefansson, 2002). This assessment may bridge the gap between practitioner and teacher related to handwriting performance in school-based practice (Chrisman, 2009).…”

Section: Use Of the Print Tool For Handwriting Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Examining Validity of the Print Tool Compared With Test of Handwriting Skills–Revised

Donica

Holt

2018

OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handwriting assessments offer practitioners an objective measure to determine handwriting deficits, track student progress, and provide evidence for the use of occupational therapy intervention. This study determines the concurrent validity of the Print Tool with the Test of Handwriting Skills-Revised (THS-R) and examines the alignment of teacher perception with the Print Tool. Participants included 46 first-and second-grade students. All participants completed both handwriting assessments, and classroom teachers (n = 4) rated each students' overall handwriting performance and potential areas of concern addressed by the Print Tool. The Print Tool overall scores have a strong correlation (r = .606) with THS-R standard scores, suggesting good concurrent validity. Median Print Tool overall scores increased with each successive teacher rating classification, supporting alignment with teacher perception. This study provides preliminary evidence for the use of the Print Tool by occupational therapy practitioners to identify potential handwriting deficits that also align with teacher perception of performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Handwriting Evaluation In Occupational Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Handwriting Evaluation In Occupational Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Use Of the Print Tool For Handwriting Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Examining Validity of the Print Tool Compared With Test of Handwriting Skills–Revised

Donica

Holt

2018

OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have suggested that some handwriting features (e.g. in-air time, drawing strategies and pen pressure) have the potential of indicating HWDs in children, although they have not been systematically examined [9], [16], [17], [20], [35]- [39]. For example, Rosenblum used a computerized digitizer system to compare the temporal handwriting features of two groups (non-proficient vs. proficient) of 8-9-year-old students [17].…”

Section: Tablet-based Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Detection of Children at Risk of Chinese Handwriting Difficulties Using Handwriting Process Information: An Exploratory Study

Lin

2019

IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handwriting difficulties (HWDs) in children have adverse effects on their confidence and academic progress. Detecting HWDs is the first crucial step toward clinical or teaching intervention for children with HWDs. To date, how to automatically detect HWDs is still a challenge, although digitizing tablets have provided an opportunity to automatically collect handwriting process information. Especially, to our best knowledge, there is no exploration into the potential of combining machine learning algorithms and the handwriting process information to automatically detect Chinese HWDs in children. To bridge the gap, we first conducted an experiment to collect sample data and then compared the performance of five commonly used classification algorithms (Decision tree, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Artificial Neural Network, Naïve Bayesian and k-Nearest Neighbor) in detecting HWDs. The results showed that: (1) only a small proportion (13%) of children had Chinese HWDs and each classification model on the imbalanced dataset (39 children at risk of HWDs versus 261 typical children) produced the results that were better than random guesses, indicating the possibility of using classification algorithms to detect Chinese HWDs; (2) the SVM model had the best performance in detecting Chinese HWDs among the five classification models; and (3) the performance of the SVM model, especially its sensitivity, could be significantly improved by employing the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique to handle the class-imbalanced data. This study gains new insights into which handwriting features are predictive of Chinese HWDs in children and proposes a method that can help the clinical and educational professionals to automatically detect children at risk of Chinese HWDs.

show abstract

Cross-sectional examination of the proficiency of year 1 and year 2 children’s alphabet-letter-writing skills

Mathwin,

Chapparo,

Challita

et al. 2023

Read Writ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective for beginning writers is to learn how to generate alphabet-letters which are recognisable and easy to read. This study investigated the accuracy of Year 1 and 2 children’s alphabet-letter-writing by evaluating their alphabet and orthographic knowledge, following evidence which identifies these skills as important for correctly representing the Latin alphabet-letters in written form. 408 typical children from the first two years of formal schooling were recruited from eight Western Australian schools and asked to write the twenty-six-lowercase alphabet-letters under three different writing conditions: from memory; the initial sounds of words; and copying. Performance was measured using the Perceive, Recall, Plan and Perform (PRPP) System of Task Analysis (Stage One). Analyses revealed the mean average number of the 26- lowercase alphabet-letters correctly written from memory was 8.17 (Year 1) and 12.76 (Year 2). Mean averages were similar across the three writing conditions. Comparative analysis showed children in Year 2 were significantly better than Year 1 children at recalling the alphabet-sequence, sound-letter-translation, and retrieving the letter-shape, letter-case, and letter-orientation. No significant difference was found in name-to-letter translation, letter-formation, or letter-placement skills. The results highlighted that many typical Year 1 and 2 children have difficulty accurately generating all 26- lowercase alphabet-letters. The findings suggested that the way early writers learn to form and place an alphabet-letter, whether it is accurate or not, is how they continue to write the alphabet-letter through their early school journey. Considerations for evaluation and instruction of alphabet-letter-writing are discussed.

show abstract

Identifying Children with and without Handwriting Difficulties UsingThe Print Tool

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Examining Validity of the Print Tool Compared With Test of Handwriting Skills–Revised

Examining Validity of the Print Tool Compared With Test of Handwriting Skills–Revised

Automated Detection of Children at Risk of Chinese Handwriting Difficulties Using Handwriting Process Information: An Exploratory Study

Cross-sectional examination of the proficiency of year 1 and year 2 children’s alphabet-letter-writing skills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About