Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Computerized Temporal Handwriting Characteristics of Proficient and Non-Proficient Handwriters

Authors: Sara, Rosenblum; Shula, Parush; Patrice L, Weiss;

Computerized Temporal Handwriting Characteristics of Proficient and Non-Proficient Handwriters

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Male, Handwriting, Computers, Cross-Sectional Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Humans, Female, Israel, Child, Agraphia, Psychomotor Performance

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    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%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
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).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
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.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
144
Top 1%
Top 1%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!