Here’s How I Write: A Child's Self-Assessment of Handwriting and Goal Setting Tool
Julie Bissell, OTD, OTR/L, ATP and Sharon Cermak, EdD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Assessment of Handwriting and Goal SettingMETHODS
Tool
Here’s How I Write: A Child's Self-Assessment of
TP and Sharon Cermak, EdD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Julie Bissell, OTD, OTR/L, ATP and Sharon Ce
• Poor writers rated their h
Participants
• Teachers of children w
• 40 children in second through fifth grade identified by their teachers as
teachers of children with
having good handwriting (n=20) or difficulty with handwriting (n=20)
good writers.
• .Race/ethnicity of participants: Hispanic (60%), White / Non Hispanic
METHODS
RESULTS
PURPOSE
METHODS
•
Correlation
coefficient of
(28%), Asian (5%) and Other (7%).
to
children can accurately
• All students in the good
handwriting
grouptheir
werehandwriting
in general education.
1.
nally
• Poor
writers rated
significantlyOflower Table
than good
writers
This
study
examines
the
validity
of
a
new
handwriting
evaluation,
Here’s
Participants
Comparison of Mean Total Scores
discriminates
between
poor
handwriting
group,
35%
were
in
general
education
only,
50%
were
and,
Teachers of children with poor handwriting rated Good
them lower
than
ough fifth
grade
identified
by their
teachers
as of• with
Poor Handwriting
I Write:
A Child’s
Handwriting
and Goaland
Setting
• 40
in second and
through
fifth gradeGroup
ide
inSelf-Assessment
general
education
supportofservices,
15% were
in children
a special
m the orHow
teachers
children with good
handwriting;
ratings were comparable for
n=20)
difficulty
with
handwriting
(n=20)
Tool
(HHIW)
designed
to
help
teachers
and
children
identify
handwriting
having
good
handwriting
(n=20)
or
difficulty
w
day
class
setting.
/L, Hispanic (60%), White / Non Hispanic
good writers.
ants:
problems and work together in finding solutions.
• .Race/ethnicity of participants: Hispanic (60
• Correlation coefficient of all children compared to their teachers was .62.
her
Instrument
S (7%).
(28%), Asian (5%) and Other (7%).
andwriting
group
were
in
general
education.
Of
2. that in the good handwriting group w
Table 1.ischildren
How
I Write (HHIW)
a self can
assessment
of handwriting
The purpose of theHere’s
study is
to determine
whether
accurately
• Table
All students
Write:
AinChild’s
Comparison
of the Mean Total Scores in
Comparison
of Mean Total
for items).
5%
were
generalSelfeducation
only, of
50%
were
consists
a
set
of
cards
sample
andScores
24
test
Twohandwriting
items
self-assess
their
handwriting
such
that25the
test(adiscriminates
between
poor
group, 35% were in genera
Affect,
Performance
and Physical Factors for
child
in services,
Good
and
Poor
Handwriting
Groups
lsupport
between
children
with
15%
were
a special
assess
affective
aspects of writing (e.g. I feel that I write Good
well;
I
like
to
children withand
good
and
poorin
handwriting.
in general
education
with support services,
and Poor Handwriting Groups.
oor handwriting rating
write.), three items measure physical factors (e.g. I sit up straight
in my
day class
setting.
chair), and the remaining 19 items assess performance components (e.g. I
Instrument
STUDY
HYPOTHESES
stay
on the line
when I write).
is and
a self
her
childassessment
ratings of of handwriting that
Here’s How I Write (HHIW) is a self assess
1. There
be aitems).
difference
the Here’s How I Write: A Child’s Selfs (a sample
and will
24 test
Twoonitems
consists of a set of 25 cards (a sample and 2
Assessment
writing (e.g.
I feel that ofI Handwriting
write well; I and
like Goal
to Setting Tool between children with
assess affective aspects of writing (e.g. I feel
good and
handwriting,
with poor handwriting rating
physical factors
(e.g. poor
I sit up
straight in children
my
write.), three items measure physical factors (e
themselves
significantly
lower.(e.g. I
tems assess
performance
components
chair), and the remaining 19 items assess
perfo
DISCUS
stay on the line when I write).
cy) is the ultimate goal
2. There
will be a moderate correlation between teacher and child ratings of
Children with poor handw
eness,
gh
correlation
between
handwriting.
than children with good ha
nd ultimately quality of
with poor handwriting are
lower than children with go
BACKGROUND
eracy and an important
DISCUSSION
/
CONCLUSION
themselves significantly low
success. Children in
rated their handwriting high
Competence
(literacy) is the ultimate goal
mic day occupied
with in the ability to read and write
Children with poor handwriting rated their handwriting support
significantly
lower
2
for the
validity of
desired outcome
of education, as there is a high correlation between
nvolvingand
handwriting
Procedures
than children with good handwriting. These findings indicate
that
children
Children reported enjoying
literacy,
post-secondary
education,
future
earning,
and
ultimately
quality
of
children
struggle
with
Children
were
assessed
one-on-one
in
their
classrooms.
Each
child
was
g of
with poor handwriting are aware of their deficits as they rated themselves
1
a very life.
important
daily
shown two cards and was
which is with
more
like handwriting.
him (I feel that
I
ention
lowerasked
than children
good
However,
although they scored
R
Learning to writewrite
is an well;
essential
component
of literacy
and an
important
I feel
that I themselves
don’t
write significantly
well),
and
then
asked
whether
his
lower than the children with good handwriting, they
foundation
needed
to
support
a
child’s
academic
success.
Children
in
s work and set his/her
choice is a little or a lotrated
like him.
responded
to each
theteachers.
24
1. Sum, A. Kirsch, I., & Yamamoto, K
theirChildren
handwriting
higher than
did of
their
This
study provides
U.S. Adults.
elementary
school spend
31%
to 60%
of each
academicrecorded
day occupied
with
mination
and
become
pairs
of
cards,
while
the
therapist
their
responses
on
a
Child
an
support for the validity of HHIW
as
a
self-assessment
of
handwriting.
2.
McHale,
K., & Cermak, S.A. (1992
2
fine motor
tasks, with
majority
that the
timesame
involving
handwriting
Procedures
rend involves
children
Form.the
The
teacherofrated
characteristics
of
the
child’s
writing.
provisional implications for children
Children
reported
enjoying
the
test
and
its
card
game
format.
on-one
ineducationally
their classrooms.
child
46, 898-903.
Between
10 to 30 Each
percent
of was
elementary school children struggle with
Children were assessedTherapy,
one-on-one
in their clas
n
setting
3. Rosenblum, S., Weiss, P.L., & Par
sked
which
is
more
like
him
(I
feel
that
I
handwriting
This may lead to difficulty participating in a very important daily
shown two cards and was
asked which is mo
ol designed
to involve
Process vs. product. Reading and
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
write well),
then
asked 3whether his
occupation
for children.
write well; I feel that4. I Ryan,
don’tR.,write
& Deci, well),
E. (2000).and
Self-dt
process
to and
improve
ents
development,
and
well
Ame
him. to
Children
responded
each to
of exercise
theis24
Sum,his
A. Kirsch,
I., and
& Yamamoto,
K. (2004, October).
labor or
market
success:
The literacy
of being.
When
a child to
is Appreciation
able
control
over
work
set
his/her
choice
atolittle
a lot
like him.
Children
respo
extended
to1.the
students,
teachers
and
administrators
ofPathways
theisAnaheim
5. Missiuna, C., Pollack, N.,& Law, M
U.S. Adults.
apist recorded
their
responses
on
a
Child
SchooltoDistrict
for their
theand
research.
own goals he/she City
is likely
develop
self-determination
cards, while
therapist
recorded
the
Ontario:
Psychological
2.participation
McHale, K., &in
Cermak,
S.A. become
(1992). Fine motorpairs
activitiesof
in elementary
school:the
Preliminary
findings
and Corporation
4 As such, a recent
same characteristics
of theTherapro,
child’s
writing.
provisional
implications
for children
with fine motor
problems.
Journal
of Occupational
Inc. www.therapro.com
internally motivated
to achieve.
trend
involves
children
Form.
TheAmerican
teacher
rated
the same characteristic
Therapy, 46, 898-903.
rable in the process of self-assessment
225 Arlington Streetand collaboration
in setting
educationally
3. Rosenblum,
S., Weiss,
P.L., & Parush, S. (2004). Handwriting evaluation for developmental dysgraphia:
Framingham, MA 01702-8723
5
Process
vs.designed
product. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 433-458.
relevant
occupational
therapy
goals.
HHIW
is
a
tool
to involve
OWLEDGEMENTS
4. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation ofACKNOWLEDGEME
intrinsic motivation, social
children in the assessment
and
goal
setting
process
to
improve
Tel: (508) 872-9494
• (800)
257-5376
development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
tudents,handwriting.
teachers and administrators
of
the
Anaheim
own
Fax: (508) 875-2062 • (800) 268-6624
is and
extended
to the
students,
5. Missiuna, C., Pollack, N.,& Law, M. (2004). TheAppreciation
perceived efficacy
goal setting
system.
Toronto, teachers an
iting evaluation, Here’s
riting and Goal Setting
en identify handwriting
cipation in the research.
Email: [email protected]
Ontario: Psychological Corporation.
City School District for their participation in the resear
Here’s How I Write is a criterion referenced handwriting self-assessment tool to
engage children in the handwriting evaluation and intervention process. Originally
developed in Israel as a Hebrew language assessment tool by Sarina Goldstand,
MSc, OTR and Debbie Gevir, MSc, OTR, the newest version was adapted from the
original by Sharon Cermak, EdD, OTR/L, FAOTA and Julie Bissell, OTD, OTR/L,
ATP.
PURPOSE
To assess a child’s self-perception of handwriting and to actively engage the child in
identifying goals to improve handwriting.
AGES
7-12 years, Grades 2-5
ADMINISTRATION TIME
15 – 20 minutes to administer
BENEFITS
The HHIW assessment and goal setting process develops a child’s self-awareness,
self-evaluation, and self-determination to become active learners.
HIGHLIGHTS
• Presented in a card game, a fun and engaging child-centered format.
• Improves a child self-direction and a teacher’s and therapist’s understanding of
the child’s handwriting needs, an important factor in the Response to Intervention
literacy and learning process.
• An ecologically valid, occupation-based handwriting assessment useful as an
important addition to fine motor, visual motor and traditional handwriting
performance assessments.
• Uses the child’s work samples in the context of typical classroom assignments to
form a baseline and monitor progress.
• Children take an active role in assessment and participate in writing measurable
handwriting goals and monitoring progress.
• HHIW process helps a child improve the automaticity and legibility of their own
handwriting which supports the development of literacy – early phoneme
recognition, visual memory, decoding, reading and writing fluency.
PURPOSE
This study examines the validity of a new handwriting evaluation, Here’s
How I Write: A Child’s Self-Assessment of Handwriting and Goal Setting
Tool (HHIW) designed to help teachers and children identify handwriting
problems and work together in finding solutions.
The purpose of the study is to determine whether children can accurately
self-assess their handwriting such that the test discriminates between
children with good and poor handwriting.
STUDY HYPOTHESES
1. There will be a difference on the Here’s How I Write: A Child’s SelfAssessment of Handwriting and Goal Setting Tool between children with
good and poor handwriting, children with poor handwriting rating
themselves significantly lower.
2. There will be a moderate correlation between teacher and child ratings of
handwriting.
Particip
• 40 ch
havin
• .Rac
(28%
• All st
poor
in ge
day c
Instrume
Here’s H
consists
assess a
write.), t
chair), an
stay on t
BACKGROUND
Competence in the ability to read and write (literacy) is the ultimate goal
and desired outcome of education, as there is a high correlation between
literacy, post-secondary education, future earning, and ultimately quality of
life.1
Learning to write is an essential component of literacy and an important
foundation needed to support a child’s academic success. Children in
elementary school spend 31% to 60% of each academic day occupied with
fine motor tasks, with the majority of that time involving handwriting 2
Between 10 to 30 percent of elementary school children struggle with
handwriting This may lead to difficulty participating in a very important daily
occupation for children.3
When a child is able to exercise control over his work and set his/her
own goals he/she is likely to develop self-determination and become
internally motivated to achieve. 4 As such, a recent trend involves children
in the process of self-assessment and collaboration in setting educationally
relevant occupational therapy goals.5 HHIW is a tool designed to involve
children in the assessment and goal setting process to improve
handwriting.
Proced
Children
shown t
write we
choice i
pairs of
Form. T
Apprecia
City Scho
n, Here’s
al Setting
andwriting
accurately
between
d’s Selfdren with
g rating
atings of
METHODS
Participants
• 40 children in second through fifth grade identified by their teachers as
having good handwriting (n=20) or difficulty with handwriting (n=20)
• .Race/ethnicity of participants: Hispanic (60%), White / Non Hispanic
(28%), Asian (5%) and Other (7%).
• All students in the good handwriting group were in general education. Of
poor handwriting group, 35% were in general education only, 50% were
in general education with support services, and 15% were in a special
day class setting.
t his/her
become
children
ationally
involve
improve
Table 1.
Compariso
Good and
Instrument
Here’s How I Write (HHIW) is a self assessment of handwriting that
consists of a set of 25 cards (a sample and 24 test items). Two items
assess affective aspects of writing (e.g. I feel that I write well; I like to
write.), three items measure physical factors (e.g. I sit up straight in my
chair), and the remaining 19 items assess performance components (e.g. I
stay on the line when I write).
ate goal
between
uality of
mportant
ldren in
pied with
writing 2
gle with
ant daily
• Poor
• Teach
teach
good
• Corre
Procedures
Children were assessed one-on-one in their classrooms. Each child was
shown two cards and was asked which is more like him (I feel that I
write well; I feel that I don’t write well), and then asked whether his
choice is a little or a lot like him. Children responded to each of the 24
pairs of cards, while the therapist recorded their responses on a Child
Form. The teacher rated the same characteristics of the child’s writing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation is extended to the students, teachers and administrators of the Anaheim
City School District for their participation in the research.
Children
than chi
with poo
lower tha
themselv
rated the
support
Children
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sum, A.
U.S. Ad
McHale
provisio
Therapy
Rosenb
Process
Ryan, R
develop
Missiun
Ontario
achers as
20)
Hispanic
cation. Of
0% were
a special
RESULTS
• Poor writers rated their handwriting significantly lower than good writers
• Teachers of children with poor handwriting rated them lower than
teachers of children with good handwriting; ratings were comparable for
good writers.
• Correlation coefficient of all children compared to their teachers was .62.
Table 1.
Table 2.
Comparison of Mean Total Scores for
Good and Poor Handwriting Groups
Comparison of the Mean Total Scores in
Affect, Performance and Physical Factors for
Good and Poor Handwriting Groups.
ing that
wo items
I like to
ht in my
ts (e.g. I
d was
that I
er his
he 24
Child
ting.
e Anaheim
DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION
Children with poor handwriting rated their handwriting significantly lower
than children with good handwriting. These findings indicate that children
with poor handwriting are aware of their deficits as they rated themselves
lower than children with good handwriting. However, although they scored
themselves significantly lower than the children with good handwriting, they
rated their handwriting higher than did their teachers. This study provides
support for the validity of HHIW as a self-assessment of handwriting.
Children reported enjoying the test and its card game format.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sum, A. Kirsch, I., & Yamamoto, K. (2004, October). Pathways to labor market success: The literacy of
U.S. Adults.
McHale, K., & Cermak, S.A. (1992). Fine motor activities in elementary school: Preliminary findings and
provisional implications for children with fine motor problems. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 46, 898-903.
Rosenblum, S., Weiss, P.L., & Parush, S. (2004). Handwriting evaluation for developmental dysgraphia:
Process vs. product. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 433-458.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Missiuna, C., Pollack, N.,& Law, M. (2004). The perceived efficacy and goal setting system. Toronto,
Ontario: Psychological Corporation.