ArticleScientific reports2022
Computerized handwriting evaluation and statistical reports for children in the age of primary school.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study proposed a novel computational method for evaluating logographic handwriting. It can precisely evaluate both the handwriting product and the process. The measures included handwriting performance as well as the temporospatial, kinematics, and kinetics features. For examining the psychometrics of this comprehensive evaluation system, typical development children aged 6 to 9 years old (grade 1 to grade 3) (n = 641) were involved in the study of factor analysis. From twelve measuring variables, the exploratory factor analysis extracted five factors (handwriting performance, motor control, speed and automation, halt and exertion, and "in air" events). The test reliability was confirmed by further recruitment of typically developing children (n = 242). The internal consistency mostly demonstrated good to excellent results for every measure. This study further recruited children with handwriting difficulties (n = 33) for testing the discriminative validity of the evaluation system. A series of two-way ANOVA tests was conducted to test the significance of the main effects of the groups (typical development and handwriting deficit) and grades (1, 2, and 3) and their interaction effects on the handwriting measures. All the measures showed significant differences between the two groups, indicating the discriminative validity for identifying handwriting deficits. Seven of twelve measures showed significant interaction effects, indicating the different trends across the grades between the two groups. Typically-developing children demonstrated ongoing progress from grade 1 to grade 3, suggesting a developmental trend during their early school age. Implications for motor development and clinical evaluation are discussed herein in relation to the five dimensions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.