Brenda Taylor

Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Overview
• Definitions
• Skills involved in handwriting
Dysgraphia is more than
• At-risk characteristics
Messy Handwriting
• Informal screening
Austin IDA, Feb. 29, 2020 • Handwriting difficulties
Brenda Taylor, Ph.D., CALT, LDT, NCED
[email protected]
• Assessment
• A Look at dyslexia & dysgraphia

1 2

Simple (or not so simple) Definition - Dysgraphia

View of Writing
Text Generation Greek word
(words, sentences, discourse)
meaning
Working impaired letter
Memory
COGNITIVE FLOW
form production
Transcription
by hand
Executive Functions
(handwriting, (conscious attention,
keyboarding, and planning, reviewing, revising,
spelling) strategies for self-regulation)

Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary

Berninger, Garcia, & Abbott 2009 research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 69-80.

3 4

1
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Definition - Dysgraphia The writing skill most

related to students
with dysgraphia…..
Motor Function
(WNL)

automatic retrieval
Handwriting and production of
Problems legible letters
Berninger, 2009 Berninger, 2009

5 6

The Reading Brain

Parietotemporal:
word
Frontal analysis
lobe:

Terms articulation

Occipitotemporal:
word form area

7 8

2
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Orthographic coding – holding

Orthographic written words in memory while
memory: analyzing letter patterns in them

Memory of Orthographic loop:

letter patterns links orthographic codes in the
and word mind’s eye with the sequential
spellings finger movements to form the
letters (working memory
component)
Berninger, (2009).

9 11

Terms Terms
• Orthographic loop c • Graphomotor function –
coordination of hand and finger
movements for handwriting

• Graphomotor dysfunction – fine

motor problems only affect their
written language skills
Fiefer & De Fina (2002); Pohlman (2008)

13 14

3
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Handwriting Components “At risk” Characteristics

• Orthographic memory/coding c •
•
Excessive erasures
Mixture of upper- and lowercase letters Letter
Name and retrieve the letter/word
Store the letter/word in the mind’s eye
• Inconsistent letter formations and slant formation
Plan to form letter (before writing) • Irregular letter sizes and shapes
• Unfinished cursive letters

Orthographic loop

• Graphomotor
skills

• Spatial
Richards, R. (1999)

15 17

“At risk” Characteristics “At risk” Characteristics

• Endurance – become fatigued with
• Inefficient speed in copying
longer written tasks
• Decreased speed of writing Rate
• Excessive speed when writing • Attention to task
• Motivation – needs excessive
encouragement from the teacher
• Inattentiveness about details when writing
• Heavy reliance on vision to monitor what
the hand is doing while writing

Richards, R., 1999 Pollock, N., et al., 2009

18 19

4
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Automatic letter writing is the best

predictor of composition length and
quality of typically developing writers
in elementary through college
Informal Screening

(Berninger, In Morris & Mather, 2008 – Evidence-Based Interventions

for Students with Learning and Behavioral Challenges)

20 21

“At risk” Predictor

Screening for Handwriting (K-3rd)
• The Alphabet Writing
Task (15 sec.) • Use of eraserless pencil & primary-lined
paper
o orthographic-motor
• Have students cross out and rewrite if they
integration make a mistake
o long-term motor • Use of handwriting style used in instruction;
memory for letter lowercase letters
forms and sequences • Alphabet letters on display are covered
o motor planning &
execution
Berninger, V. W., & Rutberg, J. (1992). Relationship of finger function to beginning writing: Berninger, Vaughn, Abbott, Rogan, Brooks, Reed, & Graham. (1997);
Application to diagnosis of writing disabilities. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, Berninger, Mizokawa, & Bragg. (1991)
198-215.

24 25

5
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Directions: Alphabet Task

The pencil you will use does not have an
eraser. Whenever you want to make a
• After directions, start stopwatch. Time for
correction, cross out and write the change
one minute. Note what letter the student
above or below what you want to correct. is writing every 15 seconds (or make a red
With this pencil write the entire alphabet in slash on the student’s paper)
order in lower-case, manuscript letters. Make
sure you print and do not use cursive • Score is the number of letters produced
handwriting. Work as quickly as you can within 15 seconds:
without making mistakes. Remember to print in o lower case,
lower-case letters, not capital letters. Ready? o not reversed,
Go. o legible (out of context), and
o in correct sequence
Berninger & Rutberg. (1992)
26

26 27

Alphabet Task HWT: Screener of Handwriting Proficiency

• Accuracy of letter retrieval in first 15 seconds o Memory o Formation

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

o Orientation o Size
Average 5 7 9
At-risk = or < 3 = or < 4 = or < 6
o Placement o Neatness
< Average 1 2 4

• Average – mean number of letters produced in 15 o Sentence o Speed

seconds
• At-risk – at or below -1 SD (standard deviation) o Posture, Pencil
Grip, Helper Hand
Berninger & Rutberg, 1992

28 29

6
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Common graphomotor difficulties

– Motor memory

Handwriting Difficulties – Motor implementation

- Motor feedback
Levine, M. (2002). Educational care: A system for understanding and helping children
with learning differences at home and in school, 2nd Edition.

30 31

Nonmotor difficulties with handwriting Handwriting is Language by Hand

Motor Function g
(WNL) g
Orthographic codes
(letter forms) Phonological codes
Due to weak (letter names)

orthographic
processing skills

Handwriting
Problems Graphomotor codes
(output)

Berninger, 2009

32 33

7
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

At-Risk Characteristics for Difficulties

with Orthographic Memory

• Crossed out letters and words

•
•
Inconsistent letter formations
Frequent letter reversals Assessment
• Spacing the same between letters as between
words
• Many may also lead to spelling delays
• Difficulty copying from the board

Levine, 2002

34 35

Dysgraphia Assessment Observe & Describe:

Examine school records
Handedness
Collect writing samples
Pencil grip
obtain teacher input Paper position

Obtain parent input (family Posture

history?)

36 37

8
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Grip - Understanding the Hand Typical Pencil Grip

Two sides: • Tripod grip
1. Mobile side: thumb, • Pencil held at a 45-degree
index finger, and middle angle to the page
finger; these fingers • Pencil should rest in the
move when you write “web space”
• Students should hold the
2. Stable side: ring and pencil firmly with a relaxed
pinky finger; these two arm and hand
fingers are generally • Pencil should point toward
closed and resting on the shoulder of the writing
the table during writing arm

Teaching Students with Dyslexia and Dysgraphia,

From: Hold On….You Have to Teach Grip, Handwriting Without Tears Berninger & Wolf, 2009

38 39

Assessment of Handwriting & Related Legibility

Processes: • Legible handwriting includes the following
characteristics:
• Areas to assess: – Letter formation – recognizable out of context;
– Legibility of handwriting – paying inconsistent formations
special attention to letter formations – Size – of the letters and proportional size
– Rate of handwriting between upper and lowercase letters
• Alphabet Task – Spacing – between letters and words
• Copying Task – Line quality – steadiness and thickness of line
– Slant – consistency in direction
– Orthographic processing
– alignment – uniformity of size and consistency on
– Spelling the writing line
– Composition
Mather, N., Wendling, B., & Roberts, R. (2009). Writing Assessment
and Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities (p. 10)

40 41

9
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

Rate – Simple Evaluation

Handwriting Legibility Scale
(HLS) • Have the student copy a sentence
that contains most or all of the letters
of the alphabet: “The quick brown
• An informal tool to assess overall fox jumps over the lazy dog.”
legibility/quality of writing for
children aged 9 years and older – Have the student practice the sentence
(attached to handout) one time,
– then have the student copy the sentence
as quickly as possible in 3 minutes.

Mather & Goldstein, 2001

42 43

Rate – Simple Evaluation Rate – Simple Evaluation

• Count the total number of letters the • Compare the student’s proficiency to the
student has written in the 3-minute period. following scale:
• Divide this number by 3 to get the total
letters per minute (lpm). Grade 1: 25 lpm
Grade 2: 30 lpm
93 ÷ 3 = 31 lpm
Grade 3: 38 lpm
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Grade 4: 45 lpm
Grade 5: 60 lpm
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Grade 6: 67 lpm
The quick brown fox jumps ov Grade 7: 74 lpm

Mather & Goldstein, 2001 Mather & Goldstein, 2001

44 45

10
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

5th Grade 51 lpm Spelling

• Norm-referenced or informal measure
• Compare oral spelling to written
spelling

Example:
Written spelling in isolation – shipe
Oral spelling – ship

When asked to look at written spelling,

Mather, N., Wendling, B., & Roberts, R. (2009). Writing Assessment
the student recognized error
and Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities (p. 222)

46 47

Orthographic Processing
Informal Checklist
Analyzing Spelling Errors
– Does the student have difficulty spelling irregular
words?
Phonological Orthographical Morphological – Forgets how letters look (inconsistent letter
formations)
(phonetically (phonetically (word structure) – Reverses letters when spelling (b for d)
inaccurate) plausible) – Has trouble copying from a book or board to
paper
strapt for
– Spells the same word in different ways
gaj for garage throte for throat strapped
– Spells words how they sound rather than how
they look
Mather & Goldstein (2001). Learning disabilities and challenging behaviors: A
guide to intervention and classroom management. Brookes Publishing

48 49

11
 Brenda Taylor
Austin IDA – Feb. 29, 2020

• Review history/records
What about Special
• Parents’ concerns/observations
Education?
• Teacher observations
“Even though IDEA 2004 includes only
• Assessment: the one broad category of written
o Observe grip, posture, paper position expression, poor spelling and
Assess legibility
o
o Assess rate
handwriting are often symptomatic of a
o Assess orthographic processing specific writing disability and should not
o Assess spelling be ignored.”
o Assess composition Assessment
• Write report Checklist Mather & Wendling (2011). In Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds.). Essentials of Specific
Learning Disabilities Identification. (p. 69)

50 51

Dyslexia Dysgraphia References

Difficulty with lower-level Difficulty with lower-level

foundational skills of reading foundational skills of writing • Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic,
(word reading) (letter production) interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 69-80.
Language-based (phonology Language-based (orthography)
and orthography) • Berninger, V. W., Garcia, N., & Abbott, R. (2009).
Multiple processes that matter in writing instruction
Difficulties with spelling Can interfere with learning to and assessment. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and
(transcription skill) spell words in writing assessment for struggling writers (pp. 15-50). NY:
Guilford.
Impacts reading Impacts written expression
comprehension
• Richards, R. (1999). The Source for Dyslexia and
Students with dyslexia may Students with dysgraphia only,
Dysgraphia. LinguiSystems.
also have handwriting will not have difficulties with
difficulties reading

52 53

12
Legibility: 3rd grade student

Scoring:
______ letter formations, size, & proportion
______ spacing & alignment
______ line quality
______ slant
______ general appearance

Overall score and description _____________________________________________________

Brenda Taylor, Ph.D., CALT, LDT

December 2017 RIDD

Handwriting Legibility Scale (HLS)

Barnett, A.L, Prunty, M. & Rosenblum, S. (2017)

Name/ID of writer: ________________________________ Male / Female. Age: _____________

Name of assessor:________________________________Date:____________________________

Profession: _______________________________________________________________________

Number of years of experience working with children in this capacity: __________________________

Learning to produce legible handwriting at sufficient speed allows children to keep up with class work and
demonstrate their knowledge. However some children struggle to learn this skill and it is important to
identify those with difficulties.

The purpose of this scale is to obtain your overall impression of the quality of the written product (not
the content of the writing), to establish the extent to which the handwriting allows for effective
communication. The scale provides an overall evaluation to identify those with difficulties in producing
legible and/or sufficiently fast handwriting. Please note that if a difficulty is identified, then a more detailed
analysis of the handwriting may be required in order to plan how best to support the child to develop their
skill.

The scale is designed for children aged 9 years and older. It contains five components, each of which should
be rated on a five-point scale (1-5), with higher scores indicating poorer performance. Compute the total
score by summing the five component scores.

The assessment should be based on a piece of ‘free writing’ produced by the child, ideally on an A4 sized
sheet of lined paper. The text should be approximately 10 lines in length.

The focus of this scale is on legibility of the handwriting. However, since speed is also an important
element you should also time the writing task. Start to time when the child begins to write and mark their
text after six minutes. This will give you a record of the child’s rate of production, useful for comparing
against other children of the same age and for monitoring performance over time.

Sometimes legibility is affected by spelling errors. You should therefore indicate below whether or not the
child has made spelling errors in the text.

Legibility
Sum score (from over page): __________________

Speed
Number of words produced in 6 minutes: ___________
[Include all abbreviations, unfinished and crossed out words]

Spelling
Did the child have many spelling errors in the text compared to other
children in the class? Yes / No
 December 2017 RIDD

For the first three components, consider your overall impression of the writing:

A. Legibility - An overall impression of global legibility based on your first reading of the text.
1 – On first reading, all words are legible
5 – On first reading, only few words are legible

1 2 3 4 5

B. Effort - An overall impression of the amount of effort required for you to read the script the first
time.
1 – On first reading, no effort is required to read the script
5 – On first read reading, the script is extremely effortful to read

1 2 3 4 5

C. Layout on the page - An overall impression of the layout of writing on the page. Well organised
handwriting is consistent, with elements appropriately positioned in relation to each other (e.g.
the position of the margin, placement of letters on the baseline, spaces within and between
words).
1 – Very good layout on the page.
5 – Very poor layout on the page.

1 2 3 4 5

Now focus on individual letters/words in more detail:

D. Letter formation - An overall impression of letter formation. Well formed letters are
appropriately shaped, contain all necessary elements, neat letter closures and are consistent in
size and slope.
1 – All letters very well formed
5 – Most letters very poorly formed

1 2 3 4 5

E. Alterations - An overall impression of the attempts made to rectify letters within words.
Includes the addition of elements, re-tracing or re-writing of letters..
1 – There are no additional elements, re-tracing or over-writing of letters within words.
5 – Most words contain additional elements, re-tracing or over-writing of letters.

1 2 3 4 5

Sum score (quality of the written product): _____

Retrieved online from: https://www.brookes.ac.uk/psychology/research/groups/institute-for-research-in-

child-development/resources/handwriting-legibility-scale/
 Dysgraphia Assessment

- Review:
• School Records – history of writing difficulties in early grades (K/1st)
• Parent information:
o Is there a history of ongoing and current handwriting problems?
o Is there a family history of handwriting difficulties?
• Handwriting samples – different times of the day; different lengths; copying vs. composing

- During assessment, observe & describe the following characteristics of the student’s handwriting:
• Handedness
• Pencil Grip
• Paper Position
• Posture

- Handwriting Assessment (to include rate and legibility):

• Alphabet Task (compare oral & written)
• Copying Task
• Spelling
• Composition

Alphabet Task - timed (measure of orthographic loop):

Measures – orthographic-motor integration; motor planning and execution
(requires the child to retrieve from memory and produce alphabet letters in sequence, integrating
orthographic symbols and motor output – orthographic loop; long-term and working memory are
involved)

Directions:
Materials: pencil without an eraser and paper lined appropriate to grade level.
Instructions:

The pencil you will use does not have an eraser. Whenever you want to make a correction, cross
out and write the change above or below what you want to correct. With this pencil write the
entire alphabet in order in lower-case, manuscript letters. Make sure you print and do not use
cursive handwriting. [Once in a while I will make a red mark on your paper. Do not pay any
attention to this. Keep going.] Work as quickly as you can without making mistakes. Remember
to print in lower-case, not capital, letters. Ready? Go. (Start stopwatch. Note what letter the child
has written at 15 seconds. Record total time.)

Brenda Taylor, Ph.D., CALT, LDT – 9/14/19

 Scoring Criteria: Number of letters produced within 15 seconds:
• Must be lower case (directions required this)
• Not reversed
• Legible (letter recognizable out of context)
• Correct sequence

Task: Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Alphabet (15 sec.)

Average 5 7 9
At-Risk = or < 3 = or < 4 = or < 6
Below Average 1 2 4

Handwriting rate - copying a sentence containing all alphabet letters: (timed)

[This task is a visual-motor copying task that requires fewer cognitive demands because a model of
each word is provided; Short-term and working memory are involved]
• Ask the student to copy a sentence that has most of the letters of the alphabet (see below).
Have the student practice writing the sentence one time, and then ask the student to copy the
sentence as quickly as possible in 3 minutes. Count the total number of letters the student has
written in the 3-minute period and divide this number by 3 to get the total letters per minute
(lpm).
o The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.
o The five boxing wizards jump quickly.
o Few black taxis drive up major roads on quiet hazy nights.

• Compare the student’s proficiency to the following scale:

Grade 1: 25 lpm Grade 5: 60 lpm
Grade 2: 30 lpm Grade 6: 67 lpm
Grade 3: 38 lpm Grade 7: 74 lpm
Grade 4: 45 lpm

Composition:
• To assess composition, you can have the student write about a topic they are interested in or
something they are looking forward to; you could also use an unedited writing sample
completed in class. Time the student for approximately 10 minutes (this also includes time for
planning).
• Use the 6+1 Trait Rubrics for scoring [http://educationnorthwest.org/traits]

Brenda Taylor, Ph.D., CALT, LDT – 9/14/19

Handwriting Legibility:
Legibility can be assessed from either an unedited student work sample or from the student’s work on
the composition measure.

1. Letter Formation:
• Are letters recognizable out of context?
• Are letters consistently formed?

2. Size:
• Are there large fluctuations in the size of the letters?
• Are letters proportional to each other and to case?

3. Spacing:
• Is there crowding of words, letters, or lines?

4. Line Quality:
• Is there uneven pressure?
• Is there pressure that is too heavy?
• Is there pressure that is too light?

5. Slant:
• Is the slant generally consistent?

6. Alignment:
• Are lines of text reasonable straight?
• Is there consistent use of line boundaries?

[You may also want to use the Handwriting Legibility Scale]

Spelling
• Spelling of single words in isolation (compare oral spelling to written spelling):
o Informal - Words Their Way Developmental Spelling Inventory
o Formal - Various achievement tests include a measure of spelling
• Analyze spelling errors – phonology, orthography, morphology
• If these instruments are available - measure of word choice (ability to identify correctly spelled
words in the absence of graphomotor skills):
o Test of Orthographic Competence – Word Choice
o PAL-III – Word Choice

Brenda Taylor, Ph.D., CALT, LDT – 9/14/19

- Orthographic Coding
Informal:
• Building Blocks Questionnaire (Adapted from Mather & Goldstein, 2001)
o Does the student have difficulty spelling irregular words?
o Forgets how letters look
o Reverses letters when spelling (b for d)
o Has trouble copying from a book or board to paper
o Spells the same word in different ways
o Spells words how they sound rather than how they look
Formal:
• PAL-II Receptive Coding; Symbol Imagery Test

According to Berninger (2009, p. 75), “The transcription skill that explains unique variance in the
handwriting, fluency, and quality of composing of children with dysgraphia, whose motor
development falls within the normal range, is automatic retrieval and production of legible letters.”

References

Berninger, V.W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 69-80.

Berninger, V. W., & Rutberg, J. (1992). Relationship of finger function to beginning writing: Application
to diagnosis of writing disabilities. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, 198-215.

Mather & Goldstein (2001). Learning disabilities and challenging behaviors: A guide to intervention and
classroom management. Brookes Publishing

Silliman, E., & Berninger, V. W. (2011). Cross-Disciplinary dialogue about the nature of oral and written
language problems in the context of developmental, academic, and phenotypic profiles. Topics in
Language Disorders, 31, 6-23.

Brenda Taylor, Ph.D., CALT, LDT – 9/14/19