11
CCSD Fieldwork PICO Project 2013 Casey Walker, OTS Touro University Nevada FINE VS. GROSS MOTOR HANDWRITING INTERVENTIONS

CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

CCSD Fieldwork PICO Project 2013

Casey Walker, OTS

Touro University Nevada

FINE VS. GROSS MOTOR HANDWRITING INTERVENTIONS

Page 2: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Which intervention is

more effective in improving

handwriting in students with

learning disabilities: fine or gross motor

activities?

Page 3: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Literary Review

• Sensorimotor Intervention vs. Therapeutic Practice on Handwriting

• Typically Developing Children

• Results: Handwriting Improved Significantly with Therapeutic Practice

• Assessing Effectiveness of Handwriting Interventions

• Typically Developing Children

• Visual-Perceptual Motor Vs. Handwriting Practice

• Results: Handwriting improved with both groups but more with handwriting practice

Page 4: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Research • 6 Weeks

• Handwriting Samples

• Pre & Post Intervention

• First Name

• Consistent Paper

• 1 Subject

• Frist Grade- 6 Year Old Boy

• Special Education Eligibility- Specific Learning Disability

• Self-Contained Primary Classroom with 17 students with variety of disabilities (cognitive & physical)

• Past medical history infers prenatal exposure to drugs, alcohol and tobacco, was premature and questionable diagnosis of FAS and ADHD.

Page 5: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Fine Motor Interventions

•Lacing

•Beading

•Card Construction

•Writing/ Tracing

•Foam Puzzles

•Playdoh Shape Building

•Zoo Sticks & Beans

•Card Game

Projects: Manipulatives:

Page 6: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Gross Motor Intervention •Sensory Motor “Yoga” Group

•Entire Classroom (17 Students)

•Approximately 30 Minute Routine

•Variety of Poses

• Strength, balance, coordination & body awareness

Page 7: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Analysis of Data •You be the judge

Page 8: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Five out of six intervention samples showed improvement

Page 9: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Considerations •Variables

•Factors

•Reality

•Statistical Significance

•Hind-sight

•Benefits

Page 10: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Conclusion...

Intervention Works!

Page 11: CCSD PICO Project Presentation

Resources • Denton, P. L., Cope, S., & Moser, C. (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.

• Howe, T.-H., Roston, K. L., Sheu, C.-F., & Hinojosa, J. (2013). Assessing handwriting intervention effectiveness in elementary school students: A two-group controlled study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 19–27.