Handwriting: a skill for life & learning

HANDWRITING: A SKILL FOR LIFE & LEARNING

Prof. Anna Barnett

Oxford Brookes University

[email protected]

Research Funding: Pearson Assessment

Action Medical Research


The importance of handwriting (and keyboarding)

The place of transcription skills in a framework for writing

The purpose of assessment

Assessment of handwriting speed – an example

Assessment of handwriting legibility – an example

OVERVIEW

HANDWRITING – STILL AN IMPORTANT SKILL

takes up much of the school day

required across the school curriculum

helps to consolidate and demonstrate knowledge

used for personal notes & assessed work

required for examinations

useful in everyday life

not just used on paper!

a different motor skill to handwriting

sometimes recommended in place of handwriting

used more now in classrooms

required for course work in education

required in most workplaces

there are a range of keyboard styles

KEYBOARDING – ANOTHER IMPORTANT SKILL

THE SIMPLE MODEL OF WRITING

Common pool of working memory

Text Generation

Transcription

Words, Sentences,Discourse

Executive Functions

eg: Planning, Review

(Adapted from Berninger and Amtmann, 2003)

Handwriting,Keyboarding, Spelling

Writing is a complex task so learning cannot be left to chance

We need to be aware of the different sub processes that have to be orchestrated in order to produce texts

Transcription may prove to be a major constraint on progress

Acquisition of any skill requires opportunities to consolidate newly acquired skills to ensure automaticity is achieved where possible

IMPLICATIONS

Teachers not well prepared to teach handwriting

Some schools have good policies

Good practice not always captured

Focus on neatness

No teaching for speed

Little time for practice

Not clear how to help those with difficulties

TEACHER SURVEYS

WHO HAS TRANSCRIPTION DIFFICULTIES?

Common in classrooms (Rubin & Henderson, 1982; Barnett et al, 2006)

Children with developmental disorders including:o Developmental Coordination Disorder (Prunty et al, 2013)o Dyslexia (Sumner et al, 2012)o Specific Language Impairment (Connelly, 2005)o Asperger’s Syndrome (Henderson & Green, 2001)o ADHD (Tucha & Lange, 2001)

Children with physical impairments/medical conditions e.g. Hemiplegia, Cerebral palsy, arthritis

WHY BE CONCERNED ABOUT POOR HANDWRITING SKILL

Poor fluency related to reduced quantity and quality of content (Connelly et al, 2002; 2005).

Can lead to academic underachievement (Briggs, 1970; Sloan & McGinnis (1992), Simner et al., 1996)

Can result in low self esteem (Phelps et al., 1985)

HANDWRITING NEEDS TO BE:

Fluent / Fast / ‘Automatic’

Legible

Flexible

Comfortable

Taught!

WHY ASSESS HANDWRITING?

Identify children with handwriting difficulties

Quantify the level of handwriting performance

Provide a detailed description of handwriting performance

Evaluate intervention programmes

Aid research

HANDWRITING TESTS

Wallen et al (1996) The Handwriting Speed Test

Killeen et al (2007) An Irish Adaptation of the Handwriting Speed Test (IA) HST

Allcock (2001) Data provided from over 2000 students aged 11-16 in the UK, PATOSS website

Admundson (1995). Evaluation Tool of Children’s Handwriting (ETCH)

Van Waelvelde et al (2012). Systematic Screening of Handwriting Difficulties (SOS)

Hamstra-Bletz et al (1987) Concise Assessment method of Children’s handwriting (BHK)

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF SPEED OF HANDWRITING (DASH)

Barnett, A.1, Henderson, S.2 & Scheib, B.2 & Schulz, J.3

1Oxford Brookes University

2Institute of Education University of London

3University of Hertfordshire

Funded by:

Pearson Assessment

Action Medical Research

THE DASH & DASH17+

UK norms

Age range: 9-16 years; 17-25 years

Carefully selected sample

Range of writing tasks

Psychometrically sound

Alongside revision of Movement ABC (Henderson & Sugden, 1992) for 3-16 year olds

DASH SAMPLE Representative: 2001 census formed basis of stratification

Age

Gender

Geographical region (12 levels)

Parental education level (indicator of SES) (5 levels)

Race/ethnic group (4 levels)

Assistance from

Prof John Rust & Prof Susan Golombok

Psychometrics Centre, City University

Cambridge Assessment Centre

Ethics approval Oxford Brookes University

SAMPLING

57 schools

Parental consent forms distributed

Children selected from returned forms

Children with known sensory & physical impairments excluded

OTs/PTs/Psychologists trained to administer test

UK Region Sample N

Sample%

Census

N

Census%

North East 57 10.4 25 4.6

North West 86 15.8 54 9.9

Yorkshire & Humberside 56 10.3 65 11.9

East Midlands 47 8.6 47 8.5

West Midlands 53 9.7 50 9.2

East of England 16 2.9 34 6.2

London 31 5.7 55 10.1

South East 114 20.9 92 16.9

South West 33 6.0 33 6.0

Wales 26 4.8 22 4.1

Scotland 18 3.3 51 9.3

Northern Ireland 9 1.6 18 3.3

Total 546 100.0 546 100.0

FIVE TASKS

Copy for 2 minutes: Copy Best – write in your best handwriting; Copy Fast - write as quickly as possible but make sure every word is readable.

Alphabet Writing for 1 minute.

Graphic Speed: Making Xs in circles for 1 minute.

FREE WRITING – 10 MINUTES

music

My Life

sports

holidaysbirthdays

friends

school

hobbies dance

clubs

fashion

pets

television

SD-scoreRaw Scores

SD-scoreCopy Best Alphabet

WritingCopy Fast Free Writing Graphic

Speed

2 <5 <21 < 13 < 7 <7 2

3 5 - 7 21 - 23 13 7 7 - 10 3

4 8 - 10 24 - 27 14 - 17 8 - 9 11 - 20 4

5 11 28 - 29 18 10 - 11 21 5

6 12 - 13 30 - 34 19 12 - 13 22 6

7 14 35 - 40 20 14 - 15 23 - 26 7

8 15 - 16 41 - 43 21 16 - 17 27 - 30 8

9 17 - 18 44 - 48 22 - 24 18 31 - 33 9

10 19 - 20 49 - 54 25 - 26 19 34 - 35 10

11 21 55 - 64 27 - 28 20 - 21 36 - 39 11

12 22 - 23 65 - 74 29 22 - 23 40 - 44 12

13 24 75 - 81 30 24 - 25 45 13

14 25 82 - 86 31 - 32 26 - 28 46 - 48 14

15 26 - 27 87 33 29 49 15

16 28 - 32 88 - 95 34 - 36 30 50 - 53 16

17 33 - 36 96 - 102 37 31 54 - 55 17

18 >36 >102 > 37 >31 > 55 18

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE TASKS

Alphabet Writing

Copy Best Copy Fast Free Writing

Graphic Speed

.48** .52** .56** .54*

Alphabet Writing

.72** .77* .69**

Copy Best .82** .71**

Copy Fast .83**

** p<.000

DASH SCORES

Standard scores for each task (mean 10, SD 3) and the resulting profile

Total DASH score - sum of 4 primary scales, converted to Total Standard Score (mean 100, SD 15) with percentile equivalents

Supplementary scores:

Graphic Speed, Copy Difference, Free Writing Profile

Cut off points:

1 and 2 SDs below mean for item scores

5th/15th percentile for Total DASH standard score

MEASUREMENT ISSUES

Validity – does the test measure what it is designed to measure?

Reliability – does the test give an accurate & consistent measure of performance?

DASH & DASH 17+

UK norms for 9-16 year olds; 17-25 year olds

Adequate samples

Psychometrically sound

Provision of standard scores

Allows for quantification of handwriting speed

Various uses – screening, access arrangements, monitoring, intervention planning/evaluation

HANDWRITING LEGIBILITY

Important for clear communication

‘Legibility bias’ - poor legibility can impact on ratings of compositional quality (Greifeneder et al., 2010)

Assessment:

Detailed component assessment(e.g. Letter shape, height, positioning, spacing, consistency) (Hamstra-Bletz et al., 1987)

Global assessment - comparison to exemplars (Amundson, 1995)

No tool for use in the UK

DEVELOPMENT OF THE HANDWRITING LEGIBILITY SCALE (HLS)

Barnett, A.1, Prunty, M.2 & Rosenblum, S.3

1Oxford Brookes University

2Brunel University

3University of Haifa, Israel

Funded by:


Aim

To develop a Handwriting Legibility Scale (HLS) for use in the UK

A quick, easy to use and practical tool

For primary school-aged children (8+ years)

Combining features of detailed & global measures

For use by educational and health professionals

The script

‘Free writing’ task DASH (Barnett et al. 2007)

10 minutes

On topic of ‘my life’

‘Everyday’ handwriting

First six minutes used for HLS rating

Development of the HLS

Five criteria based on experience & literature review

1. Global legibility

2. Effort required to read the script

3. Layout on the page

4. Letter formation

5. Alterations to the text

5-point likert scale: 1-good, 5-poor

Summed to give a total score, high scores = poor

10 year old child

10 year old child

FIVE CRITERIA

Global legibility best predictor of handwriting difficulties (Rosenblum et al., 2008; 2011) 1 – all words legible; 5 – few words legible on first reading

Effort required to read the script the rater is biased if the script is effortful to read (Greifeneder et al., 2010) 1 – no effort required; 5 – extreme effort required

Layout on the page relates to poor handwriting (Parush et al., 2010) 1 – very good layout; 5 – very poor layout

Letter formation a focus for most teaching 1 – very good formation; 5 – very poor formation

Alterations significantly predicts poor handwriting (Rosenblum et al., 2004; 2011) 1 – no alterations; 5 – most words contain alterations

Expert and content validity

12 experts (teachers, occupational therapists, psychologists)

Feedback on wording and content

Overall support for five sections

Revised wording and instructions

Need for extended examples

Reliability

Sample n=58, 8-14 years, with and without handwriting difficulties

Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha .92

Sub-sample n=20, 9-10 years, with and without handwriting difficulties

Inter-rater reliability:

Intra-class correlation total scores .92

Divided into low (5-10), medium (11-15), high (16-25) categories: Kappa 0.67 (p<.001)

Construct validity: group differences

DCD groupn=29

TD group n=29

p

Global legibility 2.86 1.31 <.001

Effort to read 3.52 1.89 <.001

Layout on the page

3.86 2.17 <.001

Letter formation 4.00 2.28 <.001

Alterations 3.04 2.17 <.001

Total 17.28 9.83 <.001

No. (%) children with low, medium & high scores on the HLS

Scores DCD group TD group

Low 0 19 (65.5%)

Medium 13 (45%) 8 (28.5%)

High 16 (55%) 2 (7%)

Chi square: 31.1 (df=2), p<.001

Further work

Further refinement and clarity of instructions are needed for the ‘layout’ component

More examples to help raters and improve reliability

Checking the HLS against a criterion measure – what to use?

Data collection on a larger sample & age range

A cut off point needs to be established to denote ‘poor legibility’ from the total score

Conclusions

Practical tools are needed to help teachers identify and support children with handwriting difficulties

The DASH can be used for screening/identification, evidence for Access arrangements, intervention planning

With further refinement the HLS may be useful for identification, quantifying performance and intervention planning

Evaluation of these tools is an ongoing process

THANK YOU

[email protected]

Documents

Handwriting: a skill for life & learning