PROBLEMS IN DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL

Percepirral and

motor Skills, 2002, 91,623-662.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 2002 Monograph Supplement 1-V91

PROBLEMS IN DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING ' RAGNHEIDUR KARLSDOTTIR AND THORARINN STEFANSSON

Nonuegiarz Ut~iverrityof Scietlce and Technology Sumtnary.-The development of handwriting quality and speed of 407 primary school children was followed from Grade 1 to Grade 5 in a longitudinal experiment. Performance was analyzed to enquire into the extent and bases for handwriting dysfunction. 27% of the children were dassi€ied as dysfunctional at the end of Grade 1. At the end of Grade 5 only 13% were so classified. Most children have adequate perception and motor abilities to develop functional handwriting. Dysfunction of handwriting speed can usually be traced to dysfunction of its quality. Dysfunction of quality can be traced to insufficient individualization in the primary instruction in handwriting which leads to a mismatch benveen the time allocated to teach certain letters to certain children and the time required for these children to learn the form of these letters.

Instruction in cursive handwriting during primary school deals with the teaching of the letters of a given model alphabet and how to join them into cursive writing. The goal of handwriting instruction is to develop a functional handwriting in the sense that it can be and decoded at a certain minimum rate given by the context. Freeman (1915) proposed standards for functional handwriting based on the requirements of employers of clerical workers. Today employers worry probably more about their workers' proficiency in keyboard communication than in their handwriting. Although Freeman's standard is s t d referred to, the context of trade and industry is becorning- obsolete as a reference for handwriting performance. A much more relevant context today is the school, since dysfunctional handwriting frustrates the development of proficiency in subjects wherever functional handwriting s k d s are required (Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Schafer, 1998). T o ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to realize their capabhties in these subjects it is an important object of handwriting instruction in primary schools to enable all children to develop handwriting that can be produced and decoded at a high enough rate to become functional. The development of handwriting proficiency for individual children or groups of children can conveniently be described in terms of profiles rendering handwriting quality and speed vs grade. Figs. 1 and 2 show some previously measured developmental profiles for average handwriting quahty and -

-

'Address enquiries to Ragnheidur Karlsdottir, Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Nonvay or e-mad (Ragnheidur.Karlsdottir@svt. ntnu.no).

R. KARLSDOTTIR & T. STEFANSSON

Grade FIG. 1. Developmental profiles for handwriting quality. : Freeman (1915); 0 : Groff (1964); r : Ssvik (1975); V : Maeland and Karlsdottir (1991); B : Karlsdotcir ( 1 9 9 6 ~ ) ; O : Graham, et 01. (1998); -: Present cut-off score for functional handwriting qualit .... Indicates a distance from the func~ionalir~ limit that corresponds to the average stanckddevia: tion of the uality distributions observed in the investigations cited; -. - . - . : Maeland (1992) cut-oa score for dysgraphy; - . . - . . -: Freeman (1915) proposed standard for cjuality. All scores have been normalized to a common scale from 0 to 1 to enable comparison.

speed. The profiles must, however, be compared with care. The correspondence between age and grade of the subjects, the amount of instruction given, and the time of the year when the tests are taken are not always drectly comparable from profile to profile. The quahty scales are based on ddferent principles of evaluation and have in Fig. 1 been renormahzed ltnearly to a common scale for comparison. Some speed tests measure the maximum writing speed while others measure the speed of writing at leisure. However, taking all this into account, the figures clearly indicate common characteristics in the forms of the profiles. The quahty profiles are characterized by a fast increase in handwriting- quality through Grade 1 followed by a slower increase through the higher grades, while the speed profiles are characterized by an approximately continuous and linear increase in writing speed through the grades. It is commonly assumed that speed and quality of handwriting are two inversely related quantities. However, strong and consistent correlations substantiating this have not been reported. Weak correlations were found by Ssvik, Arntzen, and Teulings (1982) (r =.4), Ziviani (1984) (r = .4), and Graham, et a/. (1998) (-2 < r < .2) while Rubin and Henderson (1982), Savik and Arntzen (1991), and SsvLk, Arntzen, and Karlsdottir (1993) found no statistically significant correlations. Hence, we d consider handwriting quality and speed as two approximately independent measures of handwriting proficiency. -

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

.-c

E loo

1

$

% -

80 60

Grade FIG. 2. Developmental profiles for handwriting speed. : Freeman (1915); 0 : Ayres (1917); r : Groff (1961); v : Freeman (1954); rn : Sovik (1975); : Z l v ~ n n(1984); ~ : Phelps, ef ol. (1985); 0 : Hamstra-Bletz and Blete (1990); A : Sassoon, el al. (19S6) writing at leisure; A : Sassoon, er ol. (1986), writing at speed; filled hexagons: Karlsdottir (1996ci; open hexagons: g . . . ...: Graham, el al. (1998); -: Present cut-off score for functional h a n d w r ~ t ~ nspeed; Indicates a distance from the functionality Limit chat corresponds to the average srandard deviation of the speed disrribucions observed in the investigations cited; - . . - . . -: Freenian (1915) proposed standard for speed.

When the development of handwriting performance is analyzed by sex of writer, girls on the average outperform boys both in handwriting qual~ty and speed (Groff, 1961; Ziviani & Elluns, 1984; Tarnopol & de Feldman, 1987; Hamstra-Bletz & Blote, 1990; Blote & Hamstra-Bletz, 1991; Graham, et a/., 1998). Fig. 1 shows that Freeman (1915) (filled circles) observed a steady increase in the handwriting quality through the grades while Groff (1964) (open circles) observed no increase from Grade 4 to Grade 6. This caused some concern during the sixties and seventies and was interpreted as a sign of a growing handwriting dysfunction among school children. In the handwriting debate this was frequently referred to as stagnation, implying the notion that handwriting quality should normally continue to improve at a steady rate throughout primary school, as observed by Freeman. Groff (1975) and Enstrom (1965, 1971) explained the stagnation by an alleged reduction in the emphasis put on handwriting in Grades 3 through 6 during the preceding 50 years. Herrick and Okada (1963) explained the stagnation in terms of the instructional methods used. The stagnation observed by Groff (1964) is partially corroborated by Graham, et al. (1998) (open squares) and some of the other recent results plotted in Fig. 1. Thus, there might still be reason for concern about handwriting proficiency among school children. To be

626

R. KARLSDOTTIR

&

T. STEFANSSON

able to raise this level, well-defined procedures for early identification of children running the risk of developing dysfunctional handwriting and methods for remedial action are important tools. To be able to develop and apply these tools it is important to understand the causes of handwriting dysfunction. In this paper we report and analyze the results of a longitudinal quasiexperiment wherein average developnlental profiles for handwriting proficiency from Grade 1 to Grade 5 have been obtained for a sample of primary school children. The purpose of the analysis is to inquire into the extent and bases of handwriting dysfunction among primary school children and identify procedures for early identification of these children and subsequent remedial actions. Several attempts to estimate the extent of dysfunctional handwriting among primary school children have been made. In principle, the results from such investigations depend on the criteria used for defining dysfunction. Alston (1985) defined dysfunction in terms of the requirements for handwricmg when the children entered secondary school (age 11+). These requirements were defined as "fluency for note taking at speed" and "a sufficient level of handwriting competence to allow the pupil to concentrate on more factual or creative aspects of writing." She used experienced remedial teachers to evaluate handwriting samples from about 440 English children in Grade 3 of junior school (age 9+). They estimated that 21% of the children needed help to be able to meet the handwriting requirements of secondary school. Maeland (1992) graded handwriting samples from 345 Norwegian children in Grade 4 (age lo+) on a 7-point ordinal scale. Samples receiving grades of 1 and 2 (low) were classified as dysgraphic. She found that about 10% of the children were dysgraphic. This is in agreement with estimates of the fraction of dysgraphic children in Dutch primary schools reported by Hulstijn and Mulder (1985). Teachers participating in a study by Rubin and Henderson (1982) including about 2,500 English children in Grade 3 (age 9+) believed that 12% of the children had serious handwriting problems. Teachers participating in a study by Smits-Engelsman, Van Galen, and Wchels (1995) including 746 Dutch children in Grades 2 through 6 (age 7 through 12 years) thought that 22% of the children had serious writing problems. When handwriting samples from the children were graded for handwriting quahty. 17% of the children were given grades of D or lower and were rated as ~mpairedwriters. When handwriting functionality was analyzed by sex of wnrer, dysfunction is more frequent among boys than among girls. Rubin and Henderson (1982) found that 66% of the children with serious handwriting problems were boys, Smits-Engelsman, et a/. (1995) found that 74% of the children with serious writing problems were boys, and Maeland (1992) reported chat about 88% of the dys-

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

627

graphic children were boys. In a study of 121 Dutch primary school children Hamstra-Bletz and Blste (1993) found that only boys scored below the tenth percentile. This indicates that between 10% and 20% of primary school children show dysfunctional handwriting and that among these between 66% and 88% are boys. Taking into account the diversity in the criteria used to define handwriting dysfunction, the results are remarkably consistent. The causes of handwriting dysfunction may, in principle, be sought in the child, in the school, or in the interaction between these. In seekmg the child-related causes of handwriting dysfunction, it is helpful to consider the development of handwriting performance in an information-theoretical perspective. In this perspective it is a precondition for successful handwriting instruction that the child has sufficient capabhty for attention, perception, cognitive interpretation, and motor performance. Among these capabilities the bases for handwriting dysfunction have most frequently been sought in ~ e r c e ~ t u and a l perceptual-motor disabhties while attention and perceptualcognitive causes have been explored less frequently. The school-related bases have most frequently been sought in the letterforms of the initial and the cursive model alphabets used in the instruction, and in the instructional methods used, while dysfunction reflecting insufficient understanding of the child-related sources has not been considered. The belief that handwriting dysfunction may be related to motor or perceptual disabilities of the child is reflected by the study of Smits-Engelsman, et al. (1995). Among the 24 teachers who were questioned about the likely causes of handwriting problems, 73% indicated fine motor disorders, 43% indicated general motor disorders, and 17% physical and sensory deficits. Snvik (1975) concluded from a h e a r regression analysis that 50% of the variance in the handwriting performance of children in Grades 1 through 5 (age 7+ to 11+) could be related to finger dexterity (tracing and tapping abhties), aiming, motor steadiness, visuomotor integration, visual form perception, and intelltgence. Ho\vever, strong and consistent correlations behveen scores from motor and perceptual tests and scores from handwriting proficiency tests have not been established among healthy primary school children. S0vik (1984) studied 12 dysgraphic children in Grade 3 (age 9+) in a Norwegian primary school. The study included pretests of motor and perceptual abhty and six consecutive measurements of handwriting accuracy and speed in a repeated-measures design. The motor and perceptual abhty pretests were Ayres' (1966) Southern Caldornia Figure-Ground test, Ayres' (1964) Southern California Motor Accuracy test, Beery's (1967) Visual-Motor Integration test, and Harris and Goodenough's (Harris, 1963) Draw-AMan test. Although S0vk found statistically significant ( p < .05) and moderate to strong (.4 < r < .7) correlations between the pretest scores and some of the handwriting scores in the series of repeated measures, the other scores in

628

R. KARLSDOTTIR & T. STEFANSSON

the series did not correlate with the pretest scores. Maeland and Karlsdottir (1991) studied 12 dysgraphic and 12 normal children in a Norwegian primary school. The study included measurement of handwriting accuracy and Matthews and Hove's tracing, finger tapping, and motor steadiness tests (1964) in a longitudinal design with tests in Grades 3 and 6 (age 9+ and 12+). In addition a Visual-Motor Integration test was given in Grade 3 and a Southern California Figure-Ground test in Grade 6. No significant correlations between the test scores for motor and perceptual ability and the test scores for handwriting quality were obtained. Rubin and Henderson (1982) studied a group of 20 poor writers and a group of 20 normal writers among English primary school children in Grade 3 (age 9+) of junior school. Comparing scores from a Bender-Gestalt test (1946) showed that on the average the poor writers scored significantly lower than the normal writers. But only a weak correlation ( r = .5) between the Bender-Gestalt test scores and the handwriting accuracy scores was found. Comparing scores from five fine motor subtests from the Stott, Moyes, and Henderson's Test of Motor Impairment (1972), no significant difference was found between the groups. Thus, it appears that school children, on the average, have sufficient percepRUG tion and motor abhties to develop functional handwriting. and Henderson (1982) found a greater spread in scores for fine motor skds among the poor writers than the normal writers. This is consistent with the findings of Wann and Jones (1986) and Mojet (1991) that the writing of poor hand writers is more variable than the writing of good hand writers. Van Galen, Van Doorn, and Schornaker (1990) have explained this in terms of reduced inhibition of motor noise among poor writers. This hypothesis is consistent with the findings that velocity profiles of the handwriting of poor writers are noisier than corresponding velocity profiles of normal writers (SovLk, et a/., 1993; Van Galen, Portier, Smits-Engelsman, & Schomaker, 1993). Although the average perception and motor ability may appear sufficient to allow development of functional handwriting, the large variabhty of poor writers indicates that this conclusion may not apply to the fraction of children who develop dysfunctional handwriting. As long as this fraction is less than the estimated maximum of 20% of all children, any dependence of the performance of this group on motor and perceptual preconditions, letterforms, and teaching methods w d be screened in the averaging process. The belief that the letterforms of the initial and the cursive model alphabets influence the development of handwriting proficiency has not been substantiated. Ln a longituhal study from Grades 1 through 5 (age 7+ through 11+) Karlsdottir (1996~)compared average developmental profiles for handwriting qual~tyand speed of 103 children using print-script to 104 children using dlsjoint cursive script as initial models. No significant differences were found between the correspondmg developmental profiles. In a

ow ever,

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

629

small two-year experiment in Grades 3 and 4 (age 9+ and lo+) Karlsdottir (1985; unpublished master's thesis) compared average handwriting qualtty and speed of 41 children using joint cursive script as an initial model with those of 50 children using disjoint cursive script as an initial model. Only a slight improvement, in the handwriting speed in favor of the joint initial script group was found. Karlsdottir (1997) compared average developmental profiles for children using four different cursive alphabets in a cross-sectional study including 521 primary school children in Grades 3 through 6 (age 9+ through 12+). The only differences between the profiles were in the upper grades, where small differences in the development of handwriting quality in favor of looped roman cursive and in the development of speed in disfavor of the looped roman cursive were found. Hence, it appears that, on the average, school children can develop functional handwriting tndependent of the form of the letters in the initial and cursive model alphabets used in the handwriting instruction. This is in keeping with the conclusion that primary school children have sufficient motor abilities, since motor arguments have been used to support the notion that the development of handwriting is dependent on the letterforms of the model alphabet. However, the effect of the letterforms on the development of dysfunctional children has not been investigated. Copying and tracing are longstanding and commonly used methods for teaching and exercising letterforms. Askov, Otto, and Askov (1970) concluded from Birch and Lefford's investigations (1967) of the effect of tracing on drawing ability that programs for handwriting instruction should exercise the letter forms through tracing. The conclusions from a series of experiments by Hirsch (1973), Hirsch and Niedermeyer (1973), and Askov and Greff (1975), comparing the use of tracing and copying in teaching the letter forms, was that tracing had adverse effects on the development of handwriting performance. However, all [hese investigations were short-time, smallscale experiments carried out with less than 15 subjects, following the development in handwriting performance over a time interval that in all cases was less than 10 weeks. The conclusions drawn from these experiments may thus only be valid on a short time-scale. Long-time effect of the use of tracing vs copying on the development of handwriting performance and the stabhty of the handwriting have not been properly investigated. According to closed loop motor theories (Adams, 1971), tracing provides the student with a continuous and accurate visual knowledge of results signal given by the difference observed between the trace and the trajectory produced by the child. Hence, the use of tracing may be expected to reduce the width of the distribution of the deviation between the letter model and the letter produced, and the width of the corresponding distribution of memory traces, in other words, the motor noise (cf. Van Galen, et al., 1990). The reduction of the

630

R. KARLSDOTTIR & T. STEFANSSON

motor noise is expected to strengthen the memory traces and strong traces are expected to increase the long-time stabhty of the handwriting. Hence, the use of tracing in handwriting instruction is m a d y expected to stabilize the dysfunctional handwriting of children. Another reason to expect beneficial effect from tracing on the handwriting performance is based on the suggestion that tracing stimulates the kinesthetic perception (Snvik, 1980) and Laszlo and Broderick's findings (1991) that training of the kinesthetic perception has positive remedial effect on the handwriting. Hence, there is a need to clarlfy the relative merits of teaching and exercising letterforms by copying vs tracing among children with dysfunctional handwriting. Wheeler (1972) found that for beginning writers, perceptual learning posed a greater problem than acquisition of motor slulls. McCarthy (1977) found influence of distinctive features on handwriting performance. In keeping with this, the results from several investigations have indicated that the use of instructional methods which apparently stimulate the child to perceive and understand the letterforms of the model alphabet may be of importance in the development of children's handwriting. Verbal and visual prompting of special features of the letterforms and the letter formation has improved the handwriting proficiency of children. Snvlk (1976) reported that demonstration of motion patterns and verbal explanations of letterforms improved the copying performance of 24 children in Grade 2 (age 8+). Hayes (1982) concluded, after studying the effect of perceptual prompts on the letter-copying ability of 45 kindergarten children (age 6+) and 45 Grade 3 children (age 9+), that perceptual prompting during copying practice leads to more accurate reproductions of the letter forms. Kirk (1981) concluded, after studying 54 kindergarten children (age 4+ and 5+), that combined visual and verbal demonstrations prior to copying practice was superior to either visual or verbal demonstration which was superior to copying practice without any visual and verbal demonstrations. Wright and Wright (1980) compared the letter copying in Grade 1 (age 6+) of a group of 54 children using still models to that of a group of 60 children using moving models (flip book). They concluded that using moving models improved the copying compared to using stdl models. Graham and Weintraub (1996) have contested this conclusion. Ln an investigation of kindergarten children LaNunziata, Cooper, Hill, and Trap-Porter (1985) studied the effectiveness of copying letterforms from st~Umodels, moving models, and live m o d e h g by the teacher. The live modeling produced the greatest increase in the children's copying skd. Ln a small experiment involving 41 children in Grade 4 (age lo+) Karlsdottir (1996a) found that re-introduction of the letterforms at this stage using visual and verbal explanations of the forms yielded an improvement in average handwriting qu&ty corresponding to 1.4 SD. On the other hand, the use of copying exercises at this stage rendered no measurable improvement in the

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

63 1

average qu&ty. Taking into account the absence of strong correlations between test scores for perceptual ability and test scores for handwriting, these results indicate that the cognitive understanding of the letterforms and not the perception per se may be of primary importance in the development of cursive handwriting. In the present experiment, we obtained developmental profiles for handwriting performance by measuring the handwriting quality for each child in a sample of primary school children at the end of Grades 1, 2 , 3 , and 5 and the handwriting speed at the end of Grades 3 and 5. To docun~entthe children's readiness for school and enquire into the predictive validity of school readiness test scores on later performance, all children were tested in letter awareness and copying a b h t y at the start of Grade 1. To document the perceptual and motor ability of the children and the concurrent and prechctive vahdity of perceptual and motor test scores, the perception and motor ability of 48 randomly selected children were tested at the end of Grade 1. An experimental design was introduced to enquire into the long-time effect of tracing, the relative merits of copying vs tracing, and the choice of initial letterforms on the development and stabhty of h a n d w r ~ t mperformance ~ of students with dysfunctional handwriting. The sample was first divided into two groups. One group was assigned to handwriting instruction with printscript as the initial model while the other was assigned to handwriting instruction with disjoint cursive script as the initial model. Then, each group was subdivided into two. One subgroup exercised handwriting through copying exercises only while the other used both copying and tracing exercises. Hence, we formed a total of four primary instructional groups. The motor and perceptual abilities and the choice of instruccional methods were mainly expected to influence the children with dysfunctional handwriting. Hence, we divided the sample of children into those with functional and dysfunctional handwriting at the end of Grade I , using criteria developed for this purpose, and analyzed the development of each group separately. Both handwriting proficiency and the development of handwriting dysfunction have been shown to be sex-dependent. Thus, we finally divided all subgroups by sex. The results from the experiment were analyzed in four different ways: first was the overall distribution of handwriting dysfunction and that by sex; second was the differences in readiness for school in perception and motor abilities between boys and girls and between children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting. Then, the predictive vddities of the readiness, perception, and motor ability test scores on handwriting performance in Grades 2 through 5 were examined. Finally, we inquired into the bases of handwriting dysfunction that can be traced to the use of a certain teaching method and letterforms and to motor, perceptual, attention, and cognitive

632

R. KARLSDOTTIR

&

T. STEFANSSON

abihties, and sex. This was done by comparing developmental profiles for mean values of handwriting performance scores for different treatment and sex groups and by comparing mean values for test scores in Grade 1 for those who show functional and dysfunctional writing. The paper closes with suggested procedures for early identification of handwriting dysfunction and subsequent remedial action. METHOD Subjects

The subjects were drawn from the cohort of children born in the year 1981 and enrolled in Grade 1 of primary school in the city of Trondheim in August 1988. To reduce variation due to interaction between the readmg and handwriting instruction we decided to keep the reading instruction method constant. More chan half of the schools in Trondheirn used the Learning Experience Approach to readmg instruction (see, e.g., Leimar, 1974). Hence, for inclusion in the experiment, we considered only the 30 school classes using this method. Out of these, 20 school classes agreed to participate, rendering a sample of 407 subjects, 217 boys and 190 girls. This corresponded to about 30% of the cohort of 1981 and about 65% of the number of children using this reading instructional method.

Design The four instruction groups, labeled A, B, C, and D, were formed at the beginning of school in Grade 1 by distributing the 20 school classes among the groups with five classes in each group. We took care to maintain a balance between the groups with respect to size, central and suburban schools, and the age and experience of the teachers. The instructional groups were also matched with respect to the children's readiness for school by equahzing the average age and the average scores from the letter awareness and copying ability tests. Includmg subdivisions by functionahty and sex, the basic design of the experiment was a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design with 16 cells. In each cell the handwriting test scores at the end of Grades 1, 2, 3 , and 5 were treated as repeated measures. The first factor represented the two initial models; print script with 212 subjects and disjoint cursive letters with 195 subjects. The second factor represented the two instructional methods, tracing with 200 subjects and copying with 207 subjects. The next factor represented the two levels of handwriting function&ty, functional with 297 subjects and dysfunctional with 110 subjects. The last factor represented sex, girls with 190 subjects and boys with 217 subjects.

'Analysis of other aspects of the present experiment can be found in Karlsdotrir (1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d3.

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

633

Instructional Programs In Grade 1 the children in all instructional groups were tauphr dsjointed letters. Cursive in Groups A and B and print-script in Groups C and D. In Grade 2 the children in Groups A and B were taught to join the cursive letters into cursive writing and the children in Groups C and D were taught cursive letters and how to join them into cursive writing. Letters and joins were' introduced one at a time. The teacher presented first each form (letter or join) on the blackboard. Then the handwriting movements were demonstrated visually and explained verbally. After each new form was introduced, the children were given handwriting exercises under the supervision of the teacher. In Groups A and C the exercises started with tracing exercises followed by copying exercises. The tracing exercises amounted to about 25% of the total amount of exercises given and were distributed by about 60% before the beginning of the copying exercises and 40% dstributed in between the copying exercises. In Grade 1 the tracing exercises included only single letters. In Grade 2 tracing exercises were given both for words and sentences in addition to letters with joins. In Groups B and D only copying exercises were given: in Grade 1 for single letters and in Grade 2 both for words and sentences in addition to letters with joins. In Grades 1 and 2 all instruction groups received the same amount of handwriting instruction. About 30 min. instruction and formal exercises were given twice each week for 20 weeks in Grade 1 and for 30 weeks in Grade 2. In Grade 3 all groups followed the same instructional program aimed at increasing the writing speed. This consisted m d y of weekly 40-min. copying exercises for 30 weeks. In Grades 4 and 5 no formal handwriting instruction was given. To reduce the variation from interaction behveen the reading and the handwriting instruction in the autumn term in Grade 1, the texts used in the reading instruction were written in the letterforms used in the handwriting instruction. From spring term in Grade 1 printed reading books using print-script were used in all groups.

School Readiness The school readiness of the children was assessed using letter awareness and copying tests. The tests were organized as indvidual tests, administered by one of the authors (RK) and given to the entire sample of 407 children in August at the beginning of Grade 1. Letter awareness was tested using the letter-naming test and the letterwriting test described in the Wigfross and Malrnquist test-battery as adapted in Norwegian by Vormeland (1967). In the letter-naming test the 29 capital letters of the Norwegian alphabet were first shown to the child one at a time in a random order, and the child was asked to name each letter (LNC test). Then the procedure was repeated with the small letters (LNS test). In the letter-writing test the 29 letters of the Nonvegian alphabet were named for

634

R. KARLSDOTTIR & T. STEFANSSON

the child one at a time in a random order, and the child was asked to write the letter in its capital form (WLC test). The scores were defined as the number of letters correctly named or written out of the 29 shown or named. Hence, the range of scores in all tests extended from O to 29 with intervals that were taken to be approximately equal. Copying abihty was tested using the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Lntegration of Beery (1967). Each subject was asked to copy 24 geometrical figures. The score was defined as the number of adequately (as defined in the scoring manual) copied figures out of the 24 given. Hence, the range of scores extended from O to 24 with intervals that were taken to be approximately equal. We evaluated the content validity of Letter naming: capitals, Letter naming: small letters, Writing letters: capitals, and Visual-Motor Lntegration tests for reading and handwriting abhty as high. De Hirsh, Jansky, and Langford (1966) found a correlation of .55 between letter-naming scores at the start of Grade 1 and readmg scores at the end of Grade 2, indicating a moderate predctive validity for letter-naming on reading. S ~ v i k(1975) found correlations in the range .3 < r < .6 between scores on the Visual-Motor Integration at the start of Grade 1 and later handwriting performance scores, indicating a low to moderate predictive v&dity for Visual-Motor Integration scores on handwriting. The variabhty in the scoring of the Letter naming: capitals, Letter naming: small letters, and Writing letters: capitals tests is small, and the main component of variabhty that influences the reliabhty of the tests comes from the variation in the day-form of the children. This effect is expected to disappear when the scores are averaged over a group of children. Ln addition to the variabhty in the day-form of the children the reliability of the Visual-Motor Integration is influenced by the variability in the evaluation process. The rehability of the Visual-Motor Integration as used here is, therefore, mainly dependent on the variabhty in the evaluation. No data on the evaluation-reevaluation stability of the Visual-Motor Integration are given by Beery (1967). One of us (RK), therefore, evaluated the tests twice with a time interval of about 8 mo. between the evaluations. A strong correlation coefficient of .89 ( p < ,000, N=407) was found between the scores in the evaluations. We accepted the Letter naming: capitals, Letter naming: small letters, Writing letters: capitals, and Visual-Motor Integration as valid, reliable, and, for our purpose of matching the instructional groups, adequate measures of school readiness. The test scales were treated as ratio scales.

Perception and Motor Abilities The perception and motor abilities of the children were assessed using perception and motor abhty tests. The tests were organized as individual tests, administered by one of the authors (RK) and given to a randomly selected group of 48 children in May at the end of Grade I .

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

635

Motor ability was tested using the Ayres (1964) Southern California Motor Accuracy test and the right-hand finger tapping and right-hand grooved pegboard tests of Matthews and Klove (1964), using the Lafayette Instrument Company tapping board and grooved pegboard. In the right-hand f i ger tapping test the child is provided a stylus to hold in a right-hand pencil grip. The child is then asked to tap it as rapidly as possible against a flat surface during 12 sec. The test score is d e f i e d as the number of taps during this time. Hence, the range of scores extends from O to an unspecified upper limit with intervals taken to be approximately equal. O n the grooved pegboard test the child is provided 25 short pegs with asymmetrical crosssection and a pegboard with 25 slots fitting the cross-section of the pegs, but with the cross-sectional asymmetry randomly rotated around the axis of the slots. The child is then asked to place the pegs in the slots using the right hand. The test score is defined as the time in seconds for this operation. Hence, the range of scores extends from 0 to an unspecified upper limit with intervals that were taken to be approximately equal. In the Southern Cahfornia Motor Accuracy test the child is provided a size A3 test sheet with a black l-mm thick, curved, butterfly-shaped trajectory. The child is then asked to trace the trajectory using a pencil. A maxinlum score equal to 500 is given to an accurately traced trajectory. This score is reduced by a certain amount for each deviation from the trajectory, depending on the length of the deviating line and the distance of the deviation from the trajectory. Hence, the range of the scores extends from 500 down to an unspecified lower limit. The scale has a fixed reference point, but it is difficult to assess the equahty of the scale intervals. Perception was tested using the Ayres (1966) Southern Caldornia Figure-Ground test. The child is provided 16 test cards, each with six figures and a reference figure where three of the six figures on the card have been superimposed upon each other. The test requires the child to select the three figures in each test card that are included in the reference figure. Each correctly identified superimposed figure is given a score of one. Hence, the range of the scores extends from O to 48 with intervals that were taken to be approximately equal. The right-hand finger tapping and right-hand grooved pegboard tests are assumed to be vahd measures of dexterity in vertical and rotational hand movements. The former test is also assumed to be a vahd measure for motor endurance and rapidity of movements. The Southern California Motor Accuracy test is assumed to be valid for fine motor planning. The Southern California Figure-Ground test is assumed to be a vaLd measure of figureground discrimination and is taken as a vahd indicator of perceptual deficits. The variability in the scoring of the right-hand finger tapping, right-hand grooved pegboard, and Southern CaMornia Figure-Ground tests is small,

636

R. KARLSDOTTIR & T. STEFANSSON

and the main component of variability that influences the reliability of the tests comes from the variation in the day-form of the subjects. This effect is expected to disappear when the scores are averaged over a group of subjects. In addition to the variabdity in the day-form of the subjects the reliability of the Southern Cahfornia Motor Accuracy test is influenced by the variabhty in the evaluation process. The reliability of this test as used here is, therefore, mamly dependent on the variability in the evaluation. Ayres quotes an interscorer correlation coefficient of .99 and an evaluation-reevaluation correlation coefficient of .92 for the Southern Cahfornia Motor Accuracy test (Ayres, 1964) and a test-retest correlation coefficient in the range .37 < r < .52 for the Southern Caldornia Figure-Ground test (Ayres, 1966). We accepted the Southern California Motor Accuracy, right-hand finger tapping, and right-hand grooved pegboard tests as valid and reliable tests of motor ability. We accepted the Southern California Figure-Ground test as a vahd tool for screening perceptual deficits but were concerned about its moderate test-retest reliabhty. The test scales were treated as ratio scales.

Handwriting Pevformance Handwriting performance was assessed using handwriting quality and speed tests. The tests were organized as group tests for one class at the time, administered by one of the authors (RK) to the entire sample of 407 children. Handwriting quality was tested in May in Grades 1 and 2 and both handwriting quality and speed were tested in May in Grades 3 and 5. In the handwriting quality test the child is required to produce a handwriting sample by copying a given text. The text used was a nursery rhyme, well known to the children, containing 72 small letters distributed over 20 different small letterforms. Each child was provided a card with the text, a sheet of porous lined paper with 22-mm distance between the lines, and a well sharpened Staedtler Mars-Lumograph 100, 2B pencil. In Grade 1, while the children wrote noncursive handwriting, the text was written on the card using the initial model alphabet. In Grade 2 the text was written on the card in cursive script of the cursive model alphabet as shown in Fig. 3. Ln Grades 3 and 5 the text was typed on the card. The children were asked to copy the text as accurately as they could to the sheet. The use of an eraser was atlowed. The quality of the handwriting was scored by considering each letter and join in the sample separately and judging it as mastered or not mastered with respect to the letterforms of the model alphabet (Karlsdottir, 1996b, 1996~). All major deviations of a letter or a join from the model qualified for scoring them as not mastered. This included also the position of letters in relation to the line and the size that was evaluated in relation to the average size of the handwriting. When the same letter occurred more than once in

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

F[c.3. Letterforms used in the present experiment. A: print-script letters; ters; C: text of the handwriting test written in cursive.

B: cursive let-

the text, the letterform was scored as mastered when the letter was scored as mastered on both of its first two occurrences. A final raw score for the sarnple was given as the number of mastered letterforms in the sample. Thus, the range of the raw scores extended from 0 to 20. A normahzed final score was formed as the ratio between the final raw score and the total number of different letterforms in the text. Thus, the range of the normalized score extended from O to 1. This score can be given a domain-referenced interpretation with respect to the domain of sk~Lldefined by mastering all the different letterforms of the alphabet. Thus, the normalized score can be taken as an estimate of the fraction reached of the ultimate instructional objectives for the handwriting instruction. Handwriting speed was measured using the maximum speed test described by Freeman (1915). The same cards, materials, and procedures were used as in the ¶uality test. The first h e of the same nursery rhyme was used as text. The children were asked to write the t e x t - h e again and again as fast

638

R. KARLSDOTTLR

&

T. STEFANSSON

as they could for 2 min. The scores were defined as the number of letters written per minute, excluding illegible letters in the count of letters. Hence, the range of scores extended from 0 to an unspecified upper limit with intervals that were taken to be approximately equal. Many investigations have shown that h e main factor in legibhty is the quality of the letter formation (Quant, 1946; Rubin & Henderson, 1982; Ziviani & Elkins, 1984; Mojet, 1991). Hence, we evaluated the content validity of the present quality scale for indicating legibhtg as high. For Grade 1 handwriting specimens, Karlsdottir (1996b) found a concurrent vddity coefficient of .91 between the present quality scale and a norm-referenced analytical scale of five items: letterfonns, joins, size, spacing, and alignment. Thus, it appears that the inaccuracies which conceivably could be introduced into the present quality scoring procedure due to the dichotomy in the judgement of individual letterforms disappear when the judgement is averaged over many letters. The ddficulty of the ddferent letterforms varies considerably (Karlsdottir, 1996c), and therefore they contribute unequally to the final score on the quality test. Normalized final scores greater than 0.50 are, however, based on an average score of more than 10 different letterforms. Since the scale has a well-defined zero-point, its properties in the upper half-range will approach the properties of a true ratio-scale with scale interval approximately proportional to the average letter dlfficult~.Relative comparisons can therefore be made between scores in the upper half-range of the scale. The content validity of the speed test is evaluated as very high. The reliability of the speed tests depends on the variation in the day-form of the children. The effect of this variabhty is expected to disappear in the group averages. The reliability of the score depends also on the variabhty in the evaluation. Karlsdottir (1996b) has found an evaluation-reevaluation correlation coefficient of .89 ( p < ,001, N=23) and a split-half correlation coefficient of .83 (p .4 as functional. That is, to produce handwriting with functional legibility, we find that the child must master more than 40% of the letterforms correctly. At first sight this cut-off score appears surprisingly low. But, in cursive handwriting, a mastered letterform is bound to scaffold the reading of the adjacent letters through the direction of the joins entering and leaving the letter. Hence, it is not unreasonable to find a criterion for functional legibility that corresponds approximately to each other letter being mastered. Lnspection of the form of the developmental profiles depicted in Fig. 4 shows that, on the average, the children with functional handwriting have established their future leiel of quality already at the end of Grade l . - ~ h u s , we applied the same normalized cut-off score for function&ty equal to .4 in all grades. The cut-off score is indicated as a solid line in Fig. 1 above. For comparison the cut-off score of Maeland (1992) and the standard for qu&ty proposed by Freeman (1915) are also indicated as dash-dot and dash-dotdot lines, respectively. To link the second criterion to the speed scores we started out with the lower h i t of 50 letterdmin. for functional writing speed for children in Grade 5 estimated by Karlsdottir (1997) by considering the extent of assignments presupposing functional handwriting in Norwegian primary schools. Fig. 2 shows that developmental profiles for handwriting speed can be expected to have a h e a r form. Thus, cut-off scores for functional handwriting speed, vahd at the end of each grade, could be estimated by linear interpolation. We assumed a handwriting speed equal to zero at the beginning of Grade 1 and equal to 50 letterdmin. at the end of Grade 5. This gave estimated cut-off scores for handwriting speed functionality equal to 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 letters/min. at the end of Grades 5 , 4, 3 , 2, and 1, respectively. The cut-off scores are indicated as a solid line in Fig. 2. For comparison the standard for speed proposed by Freeman (1915) is indicated as a dash-dot-

640

R. KARLSDOTTIR

& T.

STEFANSSON

dot line. After making allowance for the difficulties involved in direct comparison between the present criteria and the standards of Freeman, we conclude that Freeman's quality standard is somewhat higher than the present cut-off score for functional quality, while the speed standard is comparable to the present cut-off scores for functional speed.

Validity of Present Results The validity of the results obtained in the present experiment must be considered. The typical school situation where the experiment was performed and the longitudinal design vouch for good external validity. No carry over, latent, or learning effects that could disturb results have been identified. However, the school situation also implies a quasi-experimental design with limited statistical randomization that, in principle, reduces the internal vahdity. The quasirandom s a m p h g process influences the sampling mainly by reducing the control of the variabhty in the socioeconomic background of the children, the background of the teacher, and the instructional methods used. These factors are, however, very homogeneous in the present experiment. Further, de Hirch, et al. (1966) have reported insignificant correlations between background characteristics of children and their handwriting performance. Finally, a large fraction (65%) of the total number of children using the Learning Experience Approach readmg instructional method included in the sample strengthens the internal vahdity. But there is evidence for a connection between the teacher and handwriting performance (Sassoon, 1991). Since the number of teachers in this investigation is relatively small, systematic effects of the nonrandornized teacher factor cannot be ruled out. To counteract this we require strong statistical and practical evidence before accepting differences in group-averages as significant. The statistical significance was referred to alpha level of .01. The practical significance was judged in relation to the effect size. As a measure of the effect size we chose the d value, that is, the dkference between means in terms of the standard deviation. We assumed that a difference benveen two group means was of practical significance when it was greater than half the average standard deviation of the group distributions, that is, when it was greater than one stanine scale unit. We believe that, altogether, an acceptable internal vahdity has been obtained. RESULTS

Extent and Distribution of Handwriting Dysfunction Table 1 shows the distribution in number of children with handwriting dysfunction by grades, sex, and type of dysfunction. Consider first the distribution of qual~tydysfunction. The table shows that 110 children (80 boys, 30 girls) were classified as having dysfunctional handwriting at the end of

64 1

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

Grade 1. However, only 31 children (27 boys, 4 girls) from this group still had dysfunctional handwriting at the end of Grade 5. Further, 54 children (37 boys, 17 girls) among those that a t the end of Grade 1 were functional became dysfunctional in Grade 2. However, only one child from this group still had dysfunctional handwriting at the end of Grade 5 . Then, no new TABLE 1 N U M B E ORF CHILDREN WITHHANDWRITING DYSFUNCTION BY GRADE.SEX,

AND

TYPE OF SFU UNCTION

Grade Group

1

Grade 1

2

DO

DO

5

3

DO

DOS

DS

AU

DO

DOS

DS

AU

ALl Boys Girls

2

AU Boys Girls

3

All Boys Girls

5

All Boys Girls

AIJ

AU Boys Girls

Note.-The first row of the table shows the develo ment through the grades of [he group of children First classified as dysfuncrional at the encfof Grade 1. The second row sho\vs the same for the group whose handwriting was first classZied as dysfunctional in Grade 2, etc. DQ: d sfunction due to quality, DS: dysfunction due to speed, DQS: dysfunction due to quality andlspeed.

cases of dysfunction appeared in Grade 3. Finally, among the children in Grades 1 through 3 with functional handwriting, 22 children (17 boys, 5 girls) became dysfunctional during Grades 4 or 5 . The children in this group were analyzed further with respect to prior performance and change in school conditions. The children were generally above average in their class in all subject matter. However, one girl and four of the boys turned out to be b o r d e r h e cases in handwriting that fluctuated in performance around the cut-off score for functionahty, with an average score of 9.2 in Grade 3 deching to 7.0 in Grade 5 . Three of the girls and eight boys encountered change in school conditions: five of these due to conflicts with the teacher, three due to change of teacher, and three due to the development of negative class atmosphere. For five boys and one girl no changes in school conditions or reasons in prior performance could be found. Hence, we find first

642

R. KAKLSDOTTIR & T. STEFANSSON

that the number of children who show dysfunctional quality of handwriting decreased from 27% of the sample a t the end of Grade 1 to 13% at the end of Grade 5. Second, the children with dysfunctional handwriting in Grade 5 fell into two groups including the 31 children whose handwriting remained dysfunctional from Grades 1 through 5 and the 22 children who developed dysfunctional handwriting during Grades 4 and 5 . Boys dominated both groups. Consider now the distribution of speed dysfunction. Table 1 shows that among the children who developed dysfunction of quality in Grade 1, three children developed speed dysfunction at the end of Grade 3. One of these children's writing became functional with regard to speed in Grade 5 but continued to be dysfunctional due to quality. Thus, among the four children who showed dysfunctional handwriting in both speed and quality at the end of Grade 5 , two developed the speed dysfunction in Grade 5 , and two in Grade 3. Then, among the children who developed dysfunction in quality in Grade 2 only one child still showed dysfunctional writing at the end of Grade 3. This child has in addition developed speed dysfunction. Finally, the seven children who had dysfunctional handwriting due to speed only at the end of Grade 3 became functional in Grade 5. Further analysis for these seven children showed that three had dysfunction of quality in Grades 1 and 2, and for two handwriting became dysfunctional in Grade 2 due to problems with forming the joins. Two of the children had, however, very high quahty scores in all grades, and it is believed that these chddren stressed quality by a sacrifice of speed. Two new cases of speed dyshncr~ononly appeared in Grade 5 , for which we can give no explanation. Taking into account that two children had speed problems both in Grades 3 and 5, we find a total of 15 children, corresponding to about 4 % of the sample, who had speed dysfunction in Grades 3 and 5 . Only boys were dysfunctional in both speed and quality. Hence, we find that dysfunction due to speed can in most cases be traced back to dysfunction due to quality.

Readiness for School Table 2 shows average scores and effect sizes by sex and handwriting functionality from school readiness tests given at school start in Grade 1. To be able to select an adequate method of statistical analysis of the difference between the group averages we investigated first the mutual correlations among readiness test scores. Weak correlations with other scores were found for age (-.I5 < r < -.02, p < .01, N = 407) and Visual-Motor Integration scores ( 3 6< r < 3 7 , p < .01, N = 407). Strong correlations were found benveen the letter-naming scores ( r = .94, p < . O l , N = 407) and benveen the letter-naming scores and the letter-writing scores (.94 < r < .98, p < .01, N=407). Thus, during the subsequent multivariate analysis of variance we treated the readiness

643

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING TABLE 2 AVERAGE AGEEXPRESSED AS B~RTH MONTHA N D AVERAGE SCORES FROMSCHOOL READINESSTESTSAT SCHOOL STARTIN GRADE1 BY SEX A N D FUNCTIONALITY Group

Age

17

M

SD

Letter Naming Small Capital

IM

AU

407 217 190

SD

M

SD

Test Letter Writing Capitals

M

SD

Visual-Motor Integration

M

SD

6.5 6.5 6.5

16.5 9.6 20.3 8.9 9.3 12.1 2.2 19.8 3.5 9.8 14.8 9.6 11.9 2.1 Boys 18.6 9.5 17.9 3.5 Girls 18.4 9.2 21.9 8.2 22.1 7.8 12.3 2.3 3.5 d .OO .38 .4 1 .44 .18 Functional 297 6.2 3.4 17.7 9.4 12.5 2.2 21.4 8.3 21.0 8.7 Dysfunctional 110 7.4 3.6 13.1 9.2 17.2 9.8 16.6 9.9 11.2 1.9 d .34 .50 .46 .47 .63 Note.-Functional: 9 or more letrerforms correctly written out of 20 at the end of Grade 1. Dysfunctional: 8 or fewer letterforms correctly written out of 20 at the end of Grade 1. d: effect size d e f i e d as the ddFerence between two means expressed in units of the average of the standard deviations of the corresponding distributions.

scores as components of a school readiness vector. The null hypothesis for sex difference in the readiness vector could not be rejected (F=2.44, p = .03), but the null hypothesis for a dlfference between children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting was rejected (F=7.68, p < ,001). No significant interactions of sex and function&ty were found (F=.31, ns). Post hoc analysis of variance showed that for sex the null hypothesis for difference between boys and girls was rejected for writing of capital letters (Age: F = 1.76, ns; Visual-Motor Integration: F = .02, ns; Letter naming: capitals: F = 6.04, p = .01; Letter naming: small letters: F =5.23, p = .02; Writing letters: capitals: F=7.76, p = ,006). For functionality the null hypothesis for the difference between children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting was rejected for all components of the readiness vector (Age: F= 12.16, p=.001; VisualMotor Integration: F=28.13, p < ,001; Letter naming: capitals: F= 11.77, p = ,001; Letter naming: small letters: F = 12.92, p < .001; Writing letters: capitals: F= 11.31, p=.OOI). Hence, we find that when school started, the boys and the girls are on the average equally ready, but the children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting differ in readiness. O n the average, the latter are about 1 mo, younger than the former, and the difference in letter-naming ability is about four letters in favor of the functionally writing children. When we consider the differences in functionality in terms of practical significance, we find that the age dflerence is not significant in practice, the letter-naming dlfference is on the borderline, but the ddference in copying abhty is significant in practice: No systematic and consistent differences between children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting were found in the variances of the dstributions of the test scores.

644

R. KARLSDOTTIR

&

T. STEFANSSON

Table 3 indicates the predictive validity of the readiness test scores for later handwriting proficiency in terms of Pearson correlation coefficients between the readmess scores and the handwriting performance scores in Grades 1 through 5. The table shows that, in general, the predictive validity of the scores is weak ( r < .5). The correlations are strongest to handwriting performance scores in Grade 1 and get weaker by advancing grade levels. The Visual-Motor Integration scores appear to be better predictors than the letternaming and letter-writing scores, although the difference is s m d . The correlations are higher for girls than for boys and higher for children with functional than for those with dysfunctional handwriting, except for speed in Grade 3 where it is opposite. Inspection of the scatter plots did not indicate any clustering which would imply nonlinear associations. Hence, we find that the scores from the readiness tests were not good prehctors of later handwriting proficiency. We have not reported scores for the readiness tests vs instructional groups since these scores were equahzed when the groups were formed. To check the result of the equalizing process a multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the difference between the group centroids. As intended the null hypothesis could not be rejected (F=1.62, p = .06). Thus, the average scores for each of the instructional groups can be assumed to be equal to the scores for the entire sample of subjects (Groups = AU in Table 2).

Perception and Motor Abilities Table 4 shows average scores and effect sizes by sex and handwriting functionality from perception and motor abhty tests given at the end of Grade 1. Lnvestigation of the mutual correlations between the perception and motor ability test scores showed that the Southern Cahfornia FigureGround scores correlated moderately to the Visual-Motor Integration scores (.45 < r < .52), but the Southern Calkornia Motor Accuracy, right-hand finger tapping, and right-hand grooved pegboard scores did not correlate mutually or with the other scores. However, due to the relatively small number of subjects tested, weak correlations between the test scores could not be excluded. Thus, during the subsequent multivariate analysis of variance of the differences between the group means we treated the perception and motor ability scores as components of a common vector. The null hypotheses could not be rejected for any group dfierences in this vector (sex F = 1.87, ns; functionality F= 1.45, ns; and instruction F = .38, ns). No significant interactions between the factors were found (sex x functionality F = .65, ns, sex x instruction F= .51, ns, functionality x instruction F= .60, ns, and sex x functionality x instruction F = .68, ns). Hence, we find that perception and motor ability is, on the average, equally distributed between the sexes, the functional and the dysfunctional, and the instructional groups. The same conclu-

TABLE 3 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG READINESS, PERCEPTION A N D MOTORABILITY SCORESA N D TESTSCORESI N HANDWRITING BY SFX. FUNCTIONALITY, A N D GRADE Group

All

11

407

48

Boys

217

25

Girls

190

'Alpha = .05. tAlpha= .01.

Test Grade 1 -.16t .36t 3 3t .34t .45t .44t

Correlation Coefficient Quality Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 5 -.15* -.lo* ,391 .25t .26t .36t .22t .23t .38t .25t .24t .38t .28t .28t

Age Letter-naming: S m d letters Letter-naming: Capital letters Letter-writing: Capital letters Visual-Motor Integration Southern California Figure.Ground Southern California Motor Accuracy Finger Tapping, right hand Grooved Pegboard, right hand Age -.17* Letter-naming: Small letters .27t .35t Letter-naming: Capital letters .25t .32t Letter-writing: Capital letters .24t .32t Visual-Motor Integration .38t .jot Southern California Figure-Ground .52t Southern California Motor Accuracy Finger Tapping, right hand Grooved Pegboard, right hand Age -. 17" -.22t Letter-naming: Small letters .39t ..37t Letter-naming: Capital letters .36t .33t Letter-writing: Capital letters .36t .37t Visual-Motor Integration .5 I t .46t (continued o n next page)

Speed Grade 3 Grade 5

.34t .34t .34t .20t .33*

.27t .26t .28t .19t .29*

.33*

.20t .14* .16t .]St

.18t .14* .24t

.35t .35t .35t .20t

.29t .28t ,297 ,267 .40*

-.15* .23t .21t .24 t .36t

-.21t .28t .28t .31t .3lt

.26t .23t .23t .16*

.19t .17* .18t

TABLE 3 ( C o ~ r b ) PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG~ D I N E S S PERCEPTION , A N D MOTORAB1~l-nSCORES AND TESTSCORESI N HANDWRITING BY SEX, FUNCTIONALITY, A N D GRADE Group

11

Test Grade I

23

Functional

297

35

Dysfunctional

110

13

"Alpha= .05. tAlpha = .0l.

Southern Califorri~aF ~ ~ u r e - G r o u n d Southern Califorli~,~ Mulor Accuracy r Finger Tapping, r ~ g l ~hand Grooved Pegboard, right hand Age Letter-naming: Small letters Letter-naming: Capital lcttcrs Letter-writing: Capital letters Visual-Motor Integration Southcrn California Figure-Ground Southern California Motor Accuracy Finger Tapping, right hand Grooved Pegboard, right hand Age Letter-naming: Smdl letters Letter-naming: Capital letters Letter-writing: Capital letters Visual-Motor Integrerion Southern California Figurc-Ground Southern California Motor Accuracy Finger Tapping, right hand Grooved Pegboard, right hand

Correlation Cocfficient Oualitv Cradc Grade 3 Grade 5

5

.69*

.47

.54t

.47*

.35 t .30t .32t .4 1t

.35t .33t .34t ,317

.42*

Speed Grade 3 ' Grade 5

647

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

sion is reached when the effect size is considered, except for the difference between the Southern Cahfornia Figure-Ground test scores of children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting. In this case d=.92, indicating a difference that is significant in practice. No systematic and consistent differences between children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting were found in the variances of the distributions of test scores. TABLE 4 AVERAGE SCORESFROMPERCEPTION AND MOTORABILITY TESTSFOR48 RWDOMLY SELECTEDCHILDREN AT E N DOF GRADE1 BY SEX A N D FUNCTIONALITY

Group

Test . . .

n

-

Southern CaliFornia Motor Accuracy Figure-Ground M SD 1M SD All Boys Girls d Functional Dysfunctional d "For right hand.

48 25 23

18.4 18.2 18.7

3.5 3.5 3.6

35 13

2.8 .92

6

4.5 7.3 5.7

83 80 86

6 6

62.1 59.3

6.8 5.1

83 83

.18

3.5

19.2 16.3

SD

61.5 62.1 61.0

5

489

.14

M

Grooved Pegboard* M SD

6

488 -IS8

Tapping Right H a n d

489 487 33

.39

.17

.47

15 14 15 15 15

.OO

Table 3 above indicates the predictive vahdity of the perception and motor abhty test scores for later handwriting proficiency in terms of Pearson correlation coefficients between the perception and motor abllity test scores and the handwriting performance scores in Grades 1 through 5 . We find only sporadc correlations, with a possible exception for the Southern Cahfornia Figure-Ground test for girls in Grades 1 through 3 and the righthand finger tapping test for girls in Grades 1 and 2. Inspection of the scatter plots showed no clustering which would imply nonlinear associations. Hence, we find that the scores from the perception and motor ability test are not good predictors of later handwriting proficiency. Some of the tests used were originally developed to test children with perception and motor deficits. A possible cause of the low correlations found might thus be that the tests did not discriminate sufficiently among normal children, Inspection of scatter diagrams and variances did not provide a consistent support for this explanation.

Development of Handwriting Performance Table 5 shows the average raw scores and effect sizes by grades, sex, instruction, and handwriting functionality from the handwriting quality tests given at the end of Grades 1, 2, 3, and 5. We performed a multivariate analysis of variance of the difference between the group means treating the qual-

648

R. KARLSDOTTIR

Group

All

n

& T. STEFANSSON

Grade 1

Grade 2

M

M

SD

SD

Grade 3

M

SD

Grade 5

M

SD

Au Functional Dysfunctional

Boys

d All Functional Dysfunctional

d Girls

All Functional Dysfunctional d

A

AU Functional Dysfunctional

d

B

AU Functional Dysfunctional

d

C

All Functional Dysfunctional

D

d All Functional Dysfunctional

d Nofe.-Group A: cursive and tracing, Group tracing, Group D: p r i t and copying.

B: cursive and copying, Group C: print and

ity scores as repeated measures. The null hypothesis for difference in the development of handwriting quality between children with functional and dysfunctional handwriting was rejected (F=48.76, p < .001) but could not be rejected for the sex difference ( F = 1.47, ns) and for difference in instruction methods (F= 1.86, p= ,055). No significant interactions between the factors were found (sex x functionality F= 1.07, ns, sex x instruction F= 1.21, ns, function&ty x instruction F= 1.21, ns, and sex x functionality x instruction F= 1.54, ns). When we consider the difference in functionahty in terms of practical significance we find that all ddferences are significant in practice. Surprisingly enough, we find also differences between the sexes significant in practice. However, differences are small in practical terms (d=.64, .65, .67, and .54 in Grades 1, 2 , 3 , and 5 , respectively).

DEVELOPING FUNCTIONAL HANDWRITING

64 9

The average developmental profiles found for handwriting quabty are plotted in Fig. 4 . Consider first the profile for the children with functional writing. The profile is characterized by a large growth during Grade 1 followed by no growth during the higher grades. T o verify this we performed a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures, using difference contrasts. The null hypothesis for the difference in handwriting quality at the

Grade FIG. 4. Developmental profiles for handwriting quality obtained in the present experimenr. -: AU subjects; ---: Functional; - . . - . . - : Dysfunctional; horizontal solid h e : present limit for dysfunction; . . . . . . : Indicates a disrance From the functionali limit thnt corresponds to rhe average standard deviations of the qu&ty distributions observe? The standard errors of the average values plotted are smaller than the radii of the f'ded circles indicating the values.

end of each grade was rejected for all grade ddferences (Grade 2 vs 1: F = 27.28, p < .001, Grade 3 vs 1 and 2: F=50.83, p < ,001, Grade 5 vs 3, 2, and 1: F=23.34, p < .OOI). Hence, we find that the slight dip in the performance at the end of Grade 2 and the slight improvement in the qu&ty from Grades 3 to 5 are statistically significant results. However, when the d value is calculated for the differences in handwriting performance scores between Grades 1 and 5 , we find d= .3. Hence, we find that the improvement from Grade 1 to Grade 5 is not significant in practice and that, on the average, the children with functional handwriting establish their approximate performance in handwriting quality at the end of Grade 1. Consider now the profile for children with dysfunctional handwriting. The profile is characterized by an approximately linear growth in Grades 1 through 3 . T o verify this we performed a multivariate analysis of variance for repeated measures, using difference contrasts. The null hypothesis for the dfference in handwriting quabty at the end of each grade was rejected for

65 0

R. KARLSDOTTIR & T. STEFANSSON

all grade differences (Grade 2 vs 1: F=46.88, p