ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2025
Content validity of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6) for use with adults with acquired brain injury (ABI): An international Delphi study.
Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occupational Therapy Neurorehabilitation Practice in Middle East and North Africa (MENA): A Scoping Review.Occupational therapy international · 2026Article
- Content validity of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6) for use with adults with acquired brain injury (ABI): An international Delphi study.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOccupational therapists are responsible for assessing adult handwriting following stroke and other acquired brain injuries. The Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB) was developed for use as a diagnostic assessment tool and outcome measure. The current study aimed to investigate the content validity of version six of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6).
methodsA three round, online-Delphi study was conducted with an international group of expert clinicians and academics experienced in adult handwriting assessment and/or retraining. In round one, participants rated the importance of HAB-v6 domains and the six subtests and recommended modifications to administration and/or scoring procedures. In rounds two and three, participants were re-presented with several HAB-v6 domains where consensus was not reached and rated the importance of suggested modifications from round one. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Consumers and community members were not involved in this study.
resultsFifteen participants from the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and Australia completed round one of the Delphi, 11 participants completed round two, and 15 participants completed round three. In round one, high consensus (>70% participant agreement) was achieved regarding the importance of 5/6 subtests of the HAB-v6; suggestions were made to modify three subtests and add new subtests. In round two, high consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved on three proposed revisions: adding two subtests and modifying instructions for the copying subtest. In round three, low consensus regarding inclusion of the dots drawing subtest remained.
conclusionBased on the Delphi process, the content of five of six subtests of the HAB-v6 are valid for use by occupational therapists and others to measure adult handwriting performance, with the exception of the dots subtest, where consensus was not reached.
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.