The Effects of Number and Separation of Support Lines on the Size, Velocity, and Smoothness of Handwriting.

We examined the effects of number of and separation between support lines on handwriting characteristics of primary school students with satisfactory and unsatisfactory handwriting. Students (mean age 7.9 years) copied a text on paper with a baseline and with two or four support lines with a separation of 3 or 4 mm between the central lines. Handwriting size, velocity, and smoothness were determined for the four conditions relative to baseline. Children with unsatisfactory handwriting wrote larger and had more lifts during baseline condition. Writing between support lines, especially with small separation, immediately reduced the size of handwriting, but also adversely affected velocity and smoothness. Future research is needed to assess long-term effects.

Persistent handwriting problems are hard to predict: A longitudinal study of the development of handwriting in primary school.

BACKGROUND: After one year of tuition, up to a third of primary school children show insufficient handwriting. It is unclear whether this early insufficient handwriting predicts persistent handwriting problems, because there is a dearth of studies that followed developmental trajectories longitudinally. AIMS: To describe handwriting development in primary school children longitudinally and to determine predictive positive value and sensitivity of early handwriting assessment. To analyse whether underlying abilities helps early identification of persistent handwriting problems. METHODS: 173 primary school children were yearly assessed for four years using the Concise Assessment Scale for Children's Handwriting and the Beery Buktenica developmental test of visual-motor integration. RESULTS: Both quality and speed of handwriting increased with years of tuition, with a pronounced increase in quality between two and three years of writing tuition. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were low. The only significant predictor of handwriting quality was handwriting quality in the previous year. For handwriting speed, no significant developmental model was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: Quality and speed of handwriting after one year of tuition is not sufficiently predictive for distinguishing between transient insufficient handwriting and persistent handwriting problems three years later. Practitioners should hold back when referring children for remedial teaching.

Relationship between the quality of children's handwriting and the Beery Buktenica developmental test of visuomotor integration after one year of writing tuition.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether the three subtests of the Beery Buktenica developmental test of visuomotor integration predicted quality of handwriting across and within groups of boys and girls classified as proficient, at risk or non-proficient writers according to the Concise Assessment Scale for Children's Handwriting. METHOD: The Beery Buktenica developmental test of visuomotor integration and the Concise Assessment Scale for Children's Handwriting tests were administered to 240 grade 2 children. RESULTS: Proficient writers scored better on the visuomotor integration subtest than non-proficient writers, while proficient and at risk writers scored better than non-proficient writers on the motor coordination subtest. No differences were found on the visual perception subtest. Girls were more often classified as proficient writers than boys, and they scored better on the motor coordination subtest. Across groups, regression indicated that gender and both the visuomotor integration subtest and the motor coordination subtest were significant predictors for the quality of handwriting (i.e., accounted for 17% of the variance). CONCLUSIONS: After one year of writing tuition, the visuomotor integration subtest (and to a lesser extent the motor coordination subtest) but not the visual perception subtest significant relates to quality of children's handwriting as measured with the Concise Assessment Scale for Children's Handwriting. However, the relatively little variance explained also points to other abilities and/or task constraints that underlie quality of handwriting.