
pmid: 12674304
Abstract OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to use computerized temporal measures to examine and compare the writing process of proficient and non-proficient third-grade handwriters. METHOD. A computerized digitizer system was used to compare the temporal handwriting measures of two groups of 8–9-year-old students. Classroom teachers used a questionnaire to identify 50 students who were non-proficient handwriters and 50 students who were proficient handwriters. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) analyses were used to test for the group differences across tasks for each dependent variable. Total time, “on paper” time, “in air” time, speed, and number of characters per minute were recorded as the participants performed graded writing tasks. RESULTS. Non-proficient handwriters required significantly more time to perform handwriting tasks [F(4,91) = 14.83, p < .0001]; their “in air” time, was especially longer as compared to the proficient handwriters [F(4,91) = 13.63, p < .0001]. Their handwriting speed was slower [F(4,91) = 5.99, p < .0002], and they wrote fewer characters per minute (F(4,91) = 14.63, p < .0001). CONCLUSION. The use of a computerized handwriting system provides objective temporal measures of handwriting performance, and may lead to the development of additional tools for the evaluation and treatment of handwriting difficulties.
Male, Handwriting, Computers, Cross-Sectional Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Humans, Female, Israel, Child, Agraphia, Psychomotor Performance
Male, Handwriting, Computers, Cross-Sectional Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Humans, Female, Israel, Child, Agraphia, Psychomotor Performance
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 144 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
