Some conflicing evidence, but from my brief lit review it looks like
practice is the major factor. In the second study the intervention was
only to meet with the student twice a week for 30 minutes lasting 10
weeks. The intervention consisted of biomechanical, sensorimotor, and
teaching learning strategies (practice and feedback?). In the first
study provided it states that they compared sensorimotor (strength,
coordination, sensory training?) versus practice and the practice
intervention was more effective, in fact the sensorimotor group
declined in their ability.
1) The effects of sensorimotor-based intervention versus therapeutic
practice on improving handwriting performance in 6- to 11-year-old
children
P. L. Denton, S. Cope and C. Moser (2006)
Journal Title: American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Volume 60; Issue 1; Pages 16-27
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two
interventions (sensorimotor and therapeutic practice) on handwriting
and selected sensorimotor components in elementary-age children.
METHOD: Thirty-eight children 6 to 11 years of age with handwriting
dysfunction but no identified educational need were randomly assigned
to one of the two intervention groups or a control group. Intervention
groups met four times per week over 5 weeks. Handwriting was measured
pre- and postintervention using the Test of Handwriting Skills. Visual
perception (motor-reduced), visual-motor integration, proprioception,
and in-hand manipulation were also measured. RESULTS: Children
receiving therapeutic practice moderately improved handwriting whereas
children receiving sensorimotor intervention declined in handwriting
performance. The control group did not change significantly.
Sensorimotor impairment was noted at pretest in three or four
components and selected sensorimotor component function improved with
intervention. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic practice was more effective than
sensorimotor-based intervention at improving handwriting performance.
Children who received sensorimotor intervention improved in some
sensorimotor components but also experienced a clinically meaningful
decline in handwriting performance.
2) Effect of an occupational intervention on printing in children with
economic disadvantages
C. Q. Peterson and D. L. Nelson (2003)
Journal Title: American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Volume 57; Issue 2; Pages 152-60
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether an
occupational therapy intervention improved an academic outcome
(D'Nealian printing) in a school setting. The study specifically
examined improvement in printing skills in economically disadvantaged
first graders who were at risk academically and socially. The
intervention was based on an occupational framework including
biomechanical, sensorimotor, and teaching-learning strategies. METHOD:
The final sample consisted of 59 first-grade children from a low
socioeconomic urban elementary school-based health center who were
randomly assigned to an occupational therapy intervention or a control
condition. In addition to regular academic instruction, the
intervention group received 10 weeks of training twice a week for
30-minute sessions. The control group received only regular academic
instruction. Subjects were pretested and posttested on the Minnesota
Handwriting Test, which assesses legibility, space, line, si ze, and
form (the main variables in this study) as well as speed. RESULTS:
Multivariate analysis of variance confirmed that the gain scores in the
occupational therapy intervention group were significantly greater than
those in the control group. The Hotelling-Lawley Trace value was 0.606,
with F(5, 53) = 6.43, p < .0001). The estimated effect size (eta2) was
.378, with an observed power of .994. Largest gains for the
intervention group were in the areas of space, line, and size.
CONCLUSION: The intervention group demonstrated a significant increase
in scores on the posttest of the Minnesota Handwriting Test when
compared to the scores of the control group. Occupational intervention
was effective in improving the academic outcome of printing in children
who are economically disadvantaged
Chris Nahrwold
-----Original Message-----
From: Renee Lowrey <renee.low...@mmsean.com>
To: otlist@otnow.com
Sent: Fri, Feb 19, 2010 7:18 am
Subject: [OTlist] Evidence?
I am working in a school district where we provide ‘hands-on’
consultation.
I work with a student to see which intervention strategies
(accommodations/modifications) will work best and then education
teachers on
how to use and follow through with the recommendations. I recently
completed an eval on a student for handwriting legibility (per mom). I
recommended acc/mods for home & school and provided some strengthening
activities that could be incorporated into the natural context of his
school
day. Unfortunately, but mom was not satisfied with these
recommendations.
She wants us to work on hand strengthening (like in the a clinic)
setting so
his hand doesn’t get tired when he writes (He’s in 3rd grade now). No
matter how I explain how services are better provided in the context of
the
classroom and how the acc/mods will allow him to participate in his
education, she is not satisfied. She doesn’t want him to depend on the
acc/mods, which she thinks will result in decreased hand strength and
therefore illegible handwriting. Does anyone know of any research
regarding
the efficacy, or lack thereof, of hand strengthening exercises and
improved
hand writing; or of the benefits of a consultation model rather than an
direct, pull-out model in school systems? Any info will be most
appreciated.
Thanks,
Renée L., OTR/L
--
Options?
www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com
Archive?
www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com
--
Options?
www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com
Archive?
www.mail-archive.com/otlist@otnow.com
