ArticlePloS one2023
Ready for handwriting? A reference data study on handwriting readiness assessments.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and preliminary evaluation of a computer-assisted assessment tool for Chinese prewriting skills in preschoolers.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly evaluation of writing readiness is essential to predict and prevent handwriting difficulties and its negative influences on school occupations. An occupation-based measurement for kindergarten children has been previously developed: Writing Readiness Inventory Tool In Context (WRITIC). In addition, to assess fine motor coordination two tests are frequently used in children with handwriting difficulties: the modified Timed Test of In-Hand Manipulation (Timed TIHM) and the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT). However, no Dutch reference data are available.
aimTo provide reference data for (1) WRITIC, (2) Timed-TIHM and (3) 9-HPT for handwriting readiness assessment in kindergarten children.
methodsThree hundred and seventy-four children from Dutch kindergartens in the age of 5 to 6.5 years (5.6±0.4 years, 190 boys/184 girls) participated in the study. Children were recruited at Dutch kindergartens. Full classes of the last year were tested, children were excluded if there was a medical diagnosis such as a visual, auditory, motor or intellectual impairment that hinder handwriting performance. Descriptive statistics and percentiles scores were calculated. The score of the WRITIC (possible score 0-48 points) and the performance time on the Timed-TIHM and 9-HPT are classified as percentile scores lower than the 15th percentile to distinguish low performance from adequate performance. The percentile scores can be used to identify children that are possibly at risk developing handwriting difficulties in first grade.
resultsWRITIC scores ranged from 23 to 48 (41±4.4), Timed-TIHM ranged from 17.9 to 64.5 seconds (31.4± 7.4 seconds) and 9-HPT ranged from 18.2 to 48.3 seconds (28.4± 5.4). A WRITIC score between 0-36, a performance time of more than 39.6 seconds on the Timed-TIHM and more than 33.8 seconds on the 9-HPT were classified as low performance.
conclusionThe reference data of the WRITIC allow to assess which children are possibly at risk developing handwriting difficulties.
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.