The effects of two handwriting intervention programs for students with handwriting difficulties were compared. Students in grades 2 to 4 were randomly assigned to a sensorimotor intervention (n = 19), a task-oriented intervention (n = 19), or a nontreatment control group (n = 17). Both intervention programs also included “higher-level” functions (e.g., cognitive or executive functions). Handwriting speed and legibility were measured before, immediately after (Stage 1), and 4 months after (Stage 2) intervention. At Stage 1, statistically significant gains in handwriting performance were noted in both intervention groups, but not in the control group. Additionally, the task-oriented group scored significantly higher than the control group in overall legibility. At Stage 2, statistically significant gains were noted in both intervention groups. Thus, although neither program was found to have an advantage in terms of its unique components, it appears that students with handwriting difficulties may benefit from intervention programs that include instruction in “higher-level” strategies to support and enhance their handwriting performance.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 609–639.
2.
AyresJ. (1989). Sensory integration and Praxis tests. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
3.
BerningerV. W.VaughanK. B.AbbottR. D.AbbottS. P.RoganL.BrooksA.. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 652–666.
4.
BruininksR. H. (1978). The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
5.
Case-SmithJ. (2002). Effectiveness of school-based occupational therapy intervention on handwriting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 17–25.
6.
ChristensenC. A. (2005). The role of orthographic-motor integration in the production of creative and well-structured written text for students in secondary school. Educational Psychology, 25, 441–453.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
AmundsonCunningham S. J. (1992). Handwriting: Evaluation and intervention in school settings. In Case-SmithJ.PehoskiC. (Eds.), Development of hand skills in the child (pp. 63–78). Bethesda, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
9.
DentonP. L.CopeS.MoserC. (2006). The effects of sensorimotor-based intervention versus therapeutic practice on improving handwriting performance in 6- to 11-year-old children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 16–27.
10.
DevashL.LeviM.TraubR.ShapiroM. (1995). Reliability and validity of the Hebrew Handwriting Evaluation. Unpublished manuscript, Hebrew University, School of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.
11.
ErezN.ParushS. (1999). The Hebrew Handwriting Evaluation (2nd ed.). Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, School of Occupational Therapy.
12.
FulkB. J. M.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1992). Mnemonic generalization training with learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 2–10.
13.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.FinkB. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620–633.
14.
GrahamS.WeintraubN. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980–1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 8–87.
15.
HammillD. D.PearsonN. A.VoressJ. K. (1993). Developmental Test of Visual Perception (DTVP-2) (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
16.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for composition and self regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
17.
JongmansM. J.Linthorst-BakkerE.WestenbergY.Smits-EngelsmanB. C. M. (2003). Use of a task-oriented self-instruction method to support children in primary school with poor handwriting quality and speed. Human Movement Science, 22, 549–566.
LevinJ. R. (1993). Mnemonic strategies and classroom learning: A twenty year report card. Elementary School Journal, 94, 235–244.
20.
LevineM. D. (1985). The Pediatric Examination of Educational Readiness at Middle Childhood (PEERAMID). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publication Service.
21.
LifshitzN.ParushS. (1993). The Brief Assessment Tool for Handwriting (BATH). Unpublished manuscript, Hebrew University, School of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.
22.
Malloy-MillerT.PolatajkoH.AnsettB. (1995). Handwriting error patterns of children with mild motor difficulties. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 258–267.
23.
MercerC. D. (1991). Students with learning disabilities (4th ed.). New York: Maxwell Macmillan International.
24.
PetersonC. Q.NelsonD. L. (2003). Effect of an occupational intervention on printing in children with economic disadvantages. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 152–160.
25.
RosenbaumP.KingS.KingG.LawM.EvansJ. (1998). Family-centered service: A conceptual framework and research review. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 18(1), 1–20.
26.
SudsawadP.TromblyC. A.HendersonA.Tickle-DegnenL. (2002). Testing the effect of kinesthetic training on handwriting performance in first-grade students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 56–33.
27.
van GalenG. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement Science, 10, 165–191.
28.
WeintraubN.GrahamS. (2000). The contribution of gender, orthographic, finger function, and visual-motor processes to the prediction of handwriting status. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 121–140.
