MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414767360 · doi:10.60059/spl.2020.1.46-60

Зависимости между някои двигателни и координационни способности на ръката при ученици в начална училищна възраст

2025· article· bg· W4414767360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Рая Цочева-Генчева

Bibliographic record

VenueСпециална педагогика и логопедия · 2025
Typearticle
Languagebg
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHandwritingMotor skillFunction (biology)Motor functionOccupational therapyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Манипулативните функции на ръката при децата от начална училищна възраст, определени чрез четири задачи от теста Teach Handwriting (Lamont, 2018), показват зависимост от пола и възрастта, както и увеличаване на степента на свързаност помежду си от седемгодишните към десетгодишните ученици. Библиография: Матанова, В., & Тодорова, Е. (2013). Ръководство за прилагане на методика за оценка на образователните потребности на децата и учениците. София: Институт за психично здраве и развитие. Ценова, Ц. (2014). Практическо ръководство по логоритмична терапия. София: Дита М България. Benbow, M. (1995). Assessment of hand skills in the primary child. Fairacres, NM, USA: Clinician’s View. https://www.worldcat.org/title/assessment-of-hand-skills-in-the-primary-child/oclc/840836311. Benbow, M. (1995). Neurokinesthetic Approach to Hand Function and Handwriting. Albuquerque, Understanding the Hand from the Inside-Out Developmental Activities Based on Hand Anatomy. https://www.clinicians-view.com/University/PDF/HF01/HF01TextPreview.pdf. Boyle, C. M. (2007). An analysis of the efficacy of a motor skills training programme for young people with Moderate Learning Difficulties. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 11–24. Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services Florida Department Education. (2012). Assessments of Functional Skills. Florida: State of Florida, Department of State. Case-Smith J., O'Brien J. C. (2010). Occupational Therapy for Children. 6th ed. Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 275-312. Cohen, E. J., Bravi, R., & Minciacchi, D. (2018). The effect of fidget spinners on fine motor control. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–9. Eather, N., Bull, A., Young, M. D., Barnes, A. T., Pollock, E. R., & Morgan, P. J. (2018). Fundamental movement skills: Where do girls fall short? A novel investigation of object-control skill execution in primary-school aged girls. Preventive Medicine Reports, 11(October 2017), 191–195. Exner C. E. (1992). In-hand manipulation skills. In: Case-smith J, Pehoski C. editors. Development of Hand Skills in the Child. Bethesda, MD, American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc, 35–40. Exner C. E. (1997). Clinical interpretation of in-hand manipulation in young children: translation of movements. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(9), 729-732. Gaul, D., & Issartel, J. (2016). Fine motor skill proficiency in typically developing children: On or off the maturation track? Human Movement Science, 46, 78–85. Gonzalez, S. L., Alvarez, V., & Nelson, E. L. (2019). Do Gross and Fine Motor Skills Differentially Contribute to Language Outcomes? A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(December), 1–16. Katyal P., Raja K. (2010). Development of a Test of In-Hand Manipulation for children. Journal of Hand Therapy, 23(4), 432–433. Lin, L. Y., Cherng, R. J., & Chen, Y. J. (2017). Effect of Touch Screen Tablet Use on Fine Motor Development of Young Children. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 37(5), 457–467. Miles Breslin D. M., Exner C. E. (1999). Construct validity of the IHM test: a discriminant analysis with children without disability and children with spastic diplegia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(4), 381–386. Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., Egan, M., DeLaat, D., Gaines, R., & Soucie, H. (2008). Enabling occupation through facilitating the diagnosis of Developmental Coordination Disorder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(1), 26–34. Moskowitz, B. H. (2008). What is the effectiveness of a task-oriented approach compared to a process-oriented approach on handwriting legibility among elementary school children? DOT-EBP, 49, 69–73. Pehosi C., Henderson A., Tickle-Degnen L. (1997). In-hand manipulation in young children: rotation of objects in the fingers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(7), 544-552. Pitchford, N. J., Papini, C., Outhwaite, L. A., & Gulliford, A. (2016). Fine motor skills predict maths ability better than they predict reading ability in the early primary school years. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(May), 1–17. Pont K., Wallen M., Bundy A. (2009). Conceptualising a modified system for classification of in-hand manipulation. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 56(1), 2–15. Sang-Min, S. (2018). The effect of fine motor skills on handwriting legibility in preschool age children. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 30(2), 324–327. Simpson, A., Al Ruwaili, R., Jolley, R., Leonard, H., Geeraert, N., & Riggs, K. J. (2019). Fine Motor Control Underlies the Association Between Response Inhibition and Drawing Skill in Early Development. Child Development, 90(3), 911–923. Souto, P. H. S., Santos, J. N., Leite, H. R., Hadders-Algra, M., Guedes, S. C., Nobre, J. N. P., ... Morais, R. L. de S. (2020). Tablet Use in Young Children is Associated with Advanced Fine Motor Skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 52(2), 196–203. Van Waelvelde, H., De Weerdt, W., De Cock, P., Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M., & Peersman, W. (2004). Ball Catching Performance in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21(4), 348–363. Visser M., Nel, M., Plessis C., Jacobs, S., Joubert, A., Muller, M., Smith B., Heerden T., Soest R. (2016). In-hand manipulation (IHM) in children 6 and 7 years of age: A follow-up study. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(2)1 52–58. Visser, M., Nel, M., Vries, J. de, Klopper, E., Olën, K., & Coller, J. van. (2014). In-hand manipulation of children aged four and five-years-old: translation, rotation and shift movements, in Bloemfontein. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(2), 22–28.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.017

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueСпециална педагогика и логопедияSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207