Mental practice combined with repetitive task practice to rehabilitate handwriting in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND.: Handwriting dysfunction contributes to 40% of all school-based referrals to occupational therapy. Empirically based handwriting interventions are needed to remediate the negative effects of handwriting dysfunction on a child's occupational performance. PURPOSE.: This study examined the effectiveness of mental practice (MP) combined with repetitive task practice (RTP) to rehabilitate handwriting in children. METHOD.: Twenty typically developing first and second graders with impaired handwriting received RTP twice a week for 4 weeks, then engaged in MP combined with RTP for the same duration. Using the Minnesota Handwriting Assessment (MHA), they were assessed across four time points: baseline (1), after RTP (2), after MP combined with RTP (3), and follow-up (4). FINDINGS.: Children significantly improved and retained this increase on all variables of MHA ( p < .001) after MP combined with RTP. After RTP, the only significant improvement occurred in handwriting form ( p < .001). IMPLICATIONS.: MP may be a potential therapeutic addition to RTP in rehabilitating global handwriting dysfunction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".