Assessing handwriting performance is important for developing effective intervention programmes. We describe the development of the Arabic Handwriting Assessment for elementary school students (A-HAT) and its initial psychometric properties. In its development, the unique characteristic of the Arabic orthography played an important role.
Method
The A-HAT evolved through two stages: constructing the assessment and establishing content validity, and examining its feasibility and initial psychometric properties. The study included 114 normally achieving students in second (n = 54, Mage = 7.79, SD = 0.31) and fourth grades (n = 60, Mage = 9.86, SD = 0.40), whose mother tongue was Arabic. Students were administered the A-HAT, including copying a paragraph and writing to dictation tasks, in small groups.
Results
Speed and legibility improved from second to fourth grades, in both the copying and dictation tasks. Girls were found to write more legibly than the boys in the dictation task. Finally, medium to high test–retest and inter-rater reliability were found.
Conclusion
This study emphasises the importance of considering the unique orthography of a language in the development of a handwriting assessment. In addition, the results indicate that the A-HAT is a promising measure that may assist educators and clinicians in assessing the Arabic handwriting performance of students in lower elementary school.
AbbottRDBerningerVW (1993) Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology85(3): 478–508.
2.
Abu-RabiaSTahaH (2006) Phonological errors predominate in Arabic spelling across grades 1–9. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research35(2): 167–188.
3.
AlhawaryM (2011) Modern Standard Arabic Grammar: A Learner's Guide, 1st ed. Oxford: Wiley and Sons.
4.
BarnettALHendersonSEScheibB (2009) Development and standardization of a new handwriting speed test: The DASH. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II6: 137–157.
5.
BarnettALHendersonSEScheibB (2011) Handwriting difficulties and their assessment in young adults with DCD: Extension of the DASH for 17- to 25-year-olds. Journal of Adult Development18(3): 114–121.
6.
BensonJClarkF (1982) A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy36: 789–800.
7.
BerningerVWAbbottRDAbbottSP (2002) Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities35(1): 39–56.
8.
BoyleJR (2010) Note-taking skills of middle school students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disability35(3): 131–143.
9.
ChristensenCA (2005) The role of orthographic-motor integration in the production of creative and well-structured written text for students in secondary school. Educational Psychology25(5): 441–453.
10.
DuffSGoyenTA (2010) Reliability and validity of the Evaluation Tool of Children's Handwriting–Cursive (ETCH–C) using the general scoring criteria. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy64(1): 37–46.
11.
Engel-YegerBNagauker-YanuvLRosenblumS (2009) Handwriting performance, self-reports, and perceived self-efficacy among children with dysgraphia. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy63(2): 182–192.
EviatarZIbrahimRGanayimD (2004) Orthography and the hemispheres: Visual and linguistic aspects of letter processing. Neuropsychology18(1): 174.
14.
FederKPMajnemerA (2007) Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology49(4): 312–317.
15.
GrabowskiJ (2008) The internal structure of university students' keyboard skills. Journal of Writing Research1(1): 27–52.
16.
GrahamSWeintraubN (1996) A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review8(1): 7–87.
17.
GrahamSBerningerVWeintraubN (1998) Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1–9. Journal of Educational Research92(1): 42–52.
18.
GrahamSHarrisKRFinkB (2000) Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology92(4): 620–633.
19.
GrahamSStruckMSantoroJ (2006) Dimensions of good and poor handwriting legibility in first and second grades: Motor programs, visual-spatial arrangement and letter formation parameter setting. Developmental Neuropsychology29(1): 43–60.
20.
GreifenederRAltABottenbergK (2010) Processing fluency systematically biases evaluations of handwritten material. Social Psychological & Personality Science1(3): 230–237.
21.
GreifenederRZeltSSeeleT (2011) Towards a better understanding of the legibility bias in performance assessments: The case of gender-based inferences. British Journal of Educational Psychology82(3): 361–374.
22.
IbrahimRKhatebATahaH (2013) How does type of orthography affect reading in Arabic and Hebrew as first and second languages?Open Journal of Modern Linguistics3(1): 40–46.
23.
KarlsdottirRStefanssonT (2002) Problems in developing functional handwriting (Monograph Supplement 1-V94). Perceptual and Motor Skills94(2): 623–662.
24.
KielhofnerG (2006) Research in Occupational Therapy: Methods of Inquiry of Enhancing Practice, Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis.
25.
Khoury-Shahin R (2006) Reliability and Validity of the “Children's Handwriting Disabilities Screening Questionnaire in the Arabic Language” for Students in Grades 2–3. Thesis submitted for the MSc degree in Medical Science to the School of Occupational Therapy of Hadassah and the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
26.
LahavOMaeirAWeintraubN (2014) Gender differences in students' self-awareness of their handwriting performance. British Journal of Occupational Therapy77(12): 614–618.
O'MahonyPDempseyMKilleenH (2008) Handwriting speed: Duration of testing period and relation to socio-economic disadvantage and handedness. Occupational Therapy International15(3): 165–177.
29.
OverveldeAHulstijnW (2011) Handwriting development in grade 2 and grade 3 primary school children with normal, at risk, or dysgraphic characteristics. Research in Developmental Disabilities32(2): 540–548.
30.
ParushSWaldman–LeviAGeyerJ (2001) Academic Performance Teachers' Questionnaire (APT), Jerusalem, Israel: School of Occupational Therapy of Hadassah and the Hebrew University.
31.
PeverlyTS (2006) The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology29(1): 197–216.
32.
RavenJCStylesIRavenMA (1998) Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices: CPM plus test booklet, Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press/San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
33.
RosenblumSWeissPLParushS (2003) Product and process evaluation of handwriting difficulties. Educational Psychology Review15(1): 41–81.
34.
Salameh-MatarABasalNNashefB (2010) Arabic Handwriting Assessment for Elementary School Students (A-HAT), Jerusalem, Israel: School of Occupational Therapy of Hadassah and the Hebrew University.
35.
TahaH (2013) Reading and spelling in Arabic: Linguistic and orthographic complexity. Theory and Practice in Language Studies3(5): 721–727.
36.
van WaelveldeHHellinckxTPeersmanW (2012) SOS: A screening instrument to identify children with handwriting impairments. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics32(3): 306–319.
37.
WeintraubNGrahamS (2000) The contribution of gender, orthographic, finger function, and visual-motor processes to the prediction of handwriting status. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research20(2): 121–140.
38.
Zameret R (2004) Reliability and Validity of the Handwriting Assessment Tool in Hebrew Language for Students in Grades 4–6. Thesis submitted for the MSc degree in Medical Science to the School of Occupational Therapy of Hadassah and the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
