ArticlePloS one2024
The internal structure of handwriting proficiency in beginning writers.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative analysis of handwriting kinematics in primary and lower secondary school children through a sensorized ink pen: A cross-sectional population-based study.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Handwriting speed and pen motor control in older adults with and without cognitive impairment.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Early handwriting development: a longitudinal perspective on handwriting time, legibility, and spelling.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluent and automatized handwriting frees cognitive resources for more complex elements of writing (i.e., spelling or text generation) or even math tasks (i.e., operating) and is therefore a central objective in primary school years. Most previous research has focused on the development of handwriting automaticity across the school years and characteristics of handwriting difficulties in advanced writers. However, the relative and absolute predictive power of the different kinematic aspects for typically developing beginning handwriting remains unclear. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether and to what extent different kinematic aspects contribute to handwriting proficiency in typically developing beginning handwriters. Further, we investigated whether gender, socioeconomic background, or interindividual differences in executive functions and visuomotor integration contribute to children's acquisition of handwriting. Therefore, 853 first-grade children aged seven copied words on a digitized tablet and completed cognitive performance tasks. We used a confirmatory factor analysis to investigate how predefined kinematic aspects of handwriting, specifically the number of inversions in velocity (NIV), pen stops, pen lifts, and pressure on the paper, are linked to an underlying handwriting factor. NIV, pen stops, and pen lifts showed the highest factor loadings and therefore appear to best explain handwriting proficiency in beginning writers. Handwriting proficiency was superior in girls than boys but, surprisingly, did not differ between children from low versus high socioeconomic backgrounds. Handwriting proficiency was related to working memory but unrelated to inhibition, shifting, and visuomotor integration. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of considering different kinematic aspects in children who have not yet automatized pen movements. Results are also important from an applied perspective, as the early detection of handwriting difficulties has not yet received much research attention, although it is the base for tailoring early interventions for children at risk for 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.