Our purpose in this study was to determine the feasibility of assessing children’s prewriting with a new tablet tool, the Quantitative Assessment of Prewriting Skills (QAPS), while determining the validity of the QAPS for identifying visual motor skill differences. We recruited 10 children who were receiving occupational therapy (OT) services for visual motor deficits from a local OT clinic and 10 age-matched typically developing (TD) children from the local community. The QAPS assesses the accuracy of copying patterns on a tablet that records the child’s finger position on the tablet, and the data are then analyzed for different dimensions of pattern copying. We found a large effect size difference in the QAPS total score between our two participant groups, with the OT group showing poorer performance than TD children; and, among nine assessment dimensions, roundness of a drawn circle showed the largest effect size difference between groups. The QAPS appears to be a promising tool for assessing visual motor skills, and it warrants additional testing in larger participant samples.
AdamsA.-M.SimmonsF. R. (2018). Exploring individual and gender differences in early writing performance. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11145-018-9859-0.
AlamargotD.MorinM. F. (2015). Does handwriting on a tablet screen affect students’ graphomotor execution? A comparison between grades two and nine. Human Movement Science, 44(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HUMOV.2015.08.011.
4.
BeeryK. E.BuktenicaN. A.BeeryN. A. (2010). The Beery–Buktenica developmental test of visual–motor integration: Administration, scoring, and teaching manual (6th ed.). Pearson.
5.
BourkeL.AdamsA. M. (2012). Is it differences in language skills and working memory that account for girls being better at writing than boys?Journal of Writing Research, 3(3), 249–277. https://doi.org/10.17239/JOWR-2012.03.03.5.
6.
BruininksR. H.BruininksD. B. (2005). BOT-2: Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency (2nd ed.). Pearson Assessment.
7.
BucciarelliE. (2021). Research guides: Occupational therapy - tests, assessments, tools and measures: Most common. Retrieved October 20, 2021, fromhttps://guides.emich.edu/c.php?g=259436&p=2081301.
8.
ChangS. H.YuN. Y. (2014). The effect of computer-assisted therapeutic practice for children with handwriting deficit: A comparison with the effect of the traditional sensorimotor approach. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(7), 1648–1657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.024.
9.
CummingG.Calin-JagemanR. (2017). Confidence intervals and effect sizes. In: Introduction to the new statistics: Estimation (pp. 97–127). Taylor & Francis.
10.
DeitzJ. C.KartinD.KoppK. (2007). Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency, second edition (BOT-2). Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27(4), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/J006v27n04_06.
11.
FalkT. H.TamC.SchellnusH.ChauT. (2011). On the development of a computer-based handwriting assessment tool to objectively quantify handwriting proficiency in children. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 104(3), e102–e111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2010.12.010.
12.
FederK. P.MajnemerA. (2007, April 1). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 49(4):312–317https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00312.x
13.
FlattersI.HillL.WilliamsJ.BarberS.Mon-WilliamsM. (2014). Manual control age and sex differences in 4 to 11 year old children. Plos One, 9(2), Article e88692. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0088692.
14.
GargotT.AsselbornT.PellerinH.ZammouriI.AnzaloneS. M.CasteranL.JohalW.DilenbourgP.CohenD.JollyC. (2020). Acquisition of handwriting in children with and without dysgraphia: A computational approach. Plos One, 15(9), Article e0237575. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237575.
15.
GillbergC. (2003, October 1). Deficits in attention, motor control, and perception: A brief review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 88(10):904–910https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.88.10.904
GrahamS.BollingerA.Booth OlsonC.D’AoustC.MacArthurC.McCutchenD. N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012- 4058). Retrieved July 26, 2021, fromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.
18.
GuilbertJ.AlamargotD.MorinM. F. (2019). Handwriting on a tablet screen: Role of visual and proprioceptive feedback in the control of movement by children and adults. Human Movement Science, 65(2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HUMOV.2018.09.001.
19.
HammerschmidtS. L.SudsawadP. (2004). Teachers’ survey on problems with handwriting: Referral, evaluation, and outcomes. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(2), 185–192. American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.58.2.185.
20.
KarlsdottirR.StefanssonT. (2002). Problems in developing functional handwriting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94(2), 623–662. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.94.2.623.
21.
KasaI. (1976). A circle fitting procedure and its error analysis. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 25(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.1976.6312298.
22.
KhalidP. I.YunusJ.AdnanR. (2010). Extraction of dynamic features from hand drawn data for the identification of children with handwriting difficulty. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(1), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.09.009.
23.
MartinN. A. (2008). Test of visual-motor skills (3rd ed.). Academic Therapy Publications.
24.
MayT.AdesinaI.McGillivrayJ.RinehartN. J. (2019). Sex differences in neurodevelopmental disorders. Current Opinion in Neurology, 32(4), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000714.
25.
McMasterE.RobertsT. (2016). Handwriting in 2015: A main occupation for primary school–aged children in the classroom?Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, and Early Intervention, 9(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2016.1141084.
26.
MedwellJ. A.WrayD. (2008). Handwriting - A forgotten language skill?Language and Education, 22(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.2167/le722.0.
27.
MukakaM. M. (2012). Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69–71. www.mmj.medcol.mw.
28.
OverveldeA.HulstijnW. (2011). Handwriting development in grade 2 and grade 3 primary school children with normal, at risk, or dysgraphic characteristics. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RIDD.2010.12.027.
29.
PetríkM.KováčJ.KaťuchP.BednarčíkováL.HudákR.ŽivčákJ. (2009). Roundness: Determining the reference circle for MCCI and MICI system. Measurement 2009: Proc. 7th Int. Conf., Smolenice, Slovakia, 20–30 May, 2009, 352–355. http://www.measurement.sk/M2009/proceedings/352_Petrik.pdf.
30.
PortneyL.WatkinsM. (2007). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
31.
RönkköM.ChoE. (2020). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614.
32.
RosenblumS.DvorkinA. Y.WeissP. L. (2006). Automatic segmentation as a tool for examining the handwriting process of children with dysgraphic and proficient handwriting. Human Movement Science, 25(4–5), 608–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2006.07.005.
33.
RosenblumS.ParushS.WeissP. L. (2003). Computerized temporal handwriting characteristics of proficient and non-proficient handwriters. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.2.129.
34.
RusuC.TicoM.KuosmanenP.DelpE. J. (2003). Classical geometrical approach to circle fitting—review and new developments. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 12(1), 179. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1525792.
Smits-EngelsmanB. C. M.NiemeijerA. S.Van GalenG. P. (2001). Fine motor deficiencies in children diagnosed as DCD based on poor grapho-motor ability. Human Movement Science, 20(1–2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00033-1.
37.
Van HartingsveldtM. J.CupE. H. C.HendriksJ. C. M.de VriesL.de GrootI. J. M.Nijhuis-van der SandenM. W. G. (2015). Predictive validity of kindergarten assessments on handwriting readiness. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 36(3), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.08.014.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
