Teachers’ Perceptions of Handwriting Legibility Versus the German Systematic Screening for Motoric-Handwriting Difficulties (SEMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Handwriting problems impact school achievement. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the agreement between teachers' opinions and the German Systematische Erfassung motorischer Schreibstörungen's (SEMS) handwriting test and to estimate the prevalence of handwriting problems. This was a prospective, correlational study. Teachers' ratings of handwriting from German children (Grades 2 and 4) were compared to SEMS scores. The agreement was calculated with Gwet's AC2; preliminary cutoffs and prevalence were assessed with receiver-operating characteristic curves. SEMS accurately identified Grade 2 children with handwriting problems (specificity = 98.21%, sensitivity = 100%) but fewer Grade 4 children with handwriting difficulties than did teachers (specificity 97.67%, sensitivity 28.57%). Grade 4 item agreement supports the SEMS' ability to assess underlying handwriting dimensions as perceived by teachers. Teachers identified 12.70% of Grade 2 children versus SEMS 11.11% and 14% of Grade 4 children versus SEMS 6%. The SEMS supports clinical observations and provides information about underlying handwriting dimensions. Because handwriting is used primarily at school, the opinions of teachers are also critical.
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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".