ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Motor and cognitive determinants of L2 handwriting fluency and legibility in 10-12-year-old girls: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Handwriting remains an essential academic skill even with the rising use of digital tools in classrooms settings. This cross-sectional observational study investigated the interplay between motor and cognitive determinants in the second-language (L2) handwriting fluency and legibility among typically developing school-aged girls. Methods: L2 is operationalised via English-medium schooling exposure among Arabic L1 speakers, and English proficiency was not directly assessed. A total of 129 girls, aged 10-12 years, were asked to complete the Handwriting Speed Test (HST; letters per minute), and three experienced English teachers were invited to assess the Legibility using the Handwriting Legibility Scale (HLS; the higher the score, poorer the legibility). Measures of predictor include; manual dexterity (Grooved Pegboard Test), motor speed (Finger-tapping test over 10 and 30s), kinesthetic differentiation (force-production error in a grip-matching task), executive flexibility (Trail-making Test Part B), and visuospatial working memory (Corsi block-tapping span). Multiple linear regression models were estimated using simultaneous entries. Results: Handwriting fluency was independently predicted by better manual dexterity, higher sustained motor speed, better executive flexibility, and greater visuospatial working memory, together explaining 52% of the variance in HST scores ( Discussion: These findings suggest that L2 handwriting fluency depends on efficient and sustained motor output supported by executive control and working memory, whereas legibility relies more on fine motor precision and proprioceptive accuracy, with executive flexibility emerging as a shared correlate across both handwriting dimensions. Targeted interventions that combine fine-motor and kinesthetic training with executive-function support may help optimise both speed and legibility in classroom settings.
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.