HANDWRITING:
A SKILL FOR LIFE & LEARNING
Prof. Anna Barnett
Oxford Brookes University
abarnett@brookes.ac.uk
Research Funding:
Pearson Assessment
Action Medical Research
Oxford Brookes University
OVERVIEW
 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
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!
KEYBOARDING – ANOTHER IMPORTANT
SKILL
 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
THE SIMPLE MODEL OF WRITING
Words,
Sentences,
Text
Discourse
Generation
Common
pool of
Handwriting,
eg:
working
Keyboarding,
memory Executive Planning,
Spelling
Review
Functions
Transcription
(Adapted from Berninger and Amtmann, 2003)
IMPLICATIONS
 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
TEACHER SURVEYS
 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
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
hobbies dance
sports
friends
My Life
birthdays
holidays
clubs
pets
fashion
television
school
Raw Scores
SD-score
Copy Best
Alphabet
Writing
Copy
Fast
SD-score
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
Graphic
Speed
Alphabet
Writing
Copy Best
Copy Fast
Alphabet
Writing
Copy Best
Copy Fast
Free Writing
.48**
.52**
.56**
.54*
.72**
.77*
.69**
.82**
.71**
.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:
Oxford Brookes University
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 (1625) categories: Kappa 0.67 (p<.001)
Construct validity: group differences
DCD group
n=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
abarnett@brookes.ac.uk