Evaluating the Experiences of Occupational Therapists and Children Using the SensoGrip Pressure-Sensitive Pen in a Handwriting Intervention: Multimethods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acquisition of handwriting skills is essential for a child's academic success, self-confidence, and general school performance. Nevertheless, an estimated 5% to 27% of children face handwriting challenges, where the ability to modulate pressure on the pencil and lead on the paper is a key motor component. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the experience with and usability of the SensoGrip system, a pressure-measuring pen system with personalized real-time feedback about pressure modulation, in a clinical setting with children and occupational therapists (OTs). METHODS: A multimethods study was conducted, incorporating qualitative interviews and questionnaires with children, user diaries, focus group discussions, and a usability questionnaire with OTs, along with a questionnaire for parents. RESULTS: The study involved OTs (n=8), children with handwriting difficulties (n=16), and their parents (n=16), each of whom used the SensoGrip system in up to 5 therapy sessions. OTs reported that the SensoGrip system helped to focus the child's awareness on handwriting pressure and to measure it objectively. The system received high acceptance and usability ratings from the OTs-usefulness: median score of 4 out of 7; ease of use and ease of learning: median score of 6 out of 7; and satisfaction: median score of 6 out of 7. Participants appreciated that it fosters pressure awareness and motivation to draw and write. CONCLUSIONS: The SensoGrip pressure-sensing system with real-time feedback is a promising tool for pediatric occupational therapy. It supports children with handwriting difficulties to adjust their pressure application during the task. In the future, controlled quantitative trials are warranted to further examine the system's impact.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".