The relationship between sensory integration and handwriting skills: Underlying factors that impact handwriting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary school students learn writing in various ways including paper and computer-based activities. Paper-based handwriting tasks have a strong connection to overall academic success including spelling, reading, composition, and writing. Sensory integration, the ability of the body to process, integrate and organize sensory information internal and external to the person, has been suggested to impact paper-based writing skills. This study addresses students with and without handwriting deficits and their performance in sensory integration areas of tactile perception, praxis, and motor integration. A cross-sectional design was used with Grade 3 and 4 students separated into two groups based on handwriting legibility scores on the Handwriting Legibility Scale (with deficits n = 6 and without deficits n = 27). Student scores on 11 (out of 20) tests of the Evaluation in Ayres Sensory Integration were compared between these two groups. Results indicated students with handwriting deficits scored lower in all areas of tactile perception, three of five areas of praxis, and two of three motor skill areas. Therefore, sensory integration challenges should be considered as possible underlying deficits when addressing challenges with handwriting tasks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".