Chris, Thanks for the info. I found those in my original search, but was hoping there was something out there I hadn't seen yet.
Thanks for taking the time!! -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 6:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OTlist] Evidence? Some conflicing evidence, but from my brief lit review it looks like practice is the major factor. In the second study the intervention was only to meet with the student twice a week for 30 minutes lasting 10 weeks. The intervention consisted of biomechanical, sensorimotor, and teaching learning strategies (practice and feedback?). In the first study provided it states that they compared sensorimotor (strength, coordination, sensory training?) versus practice and the practice intervention was more effective, in fact the sensorimotor group declined in their ability. 1) The effects of sensorimotor-based intervention versus therapeutic practice on improving handwriting performance in 6- to 11-year-old children P. L. Denton, S. Cope and C. Moser (2006) Journal Title: American Journal of Occupational Therapy Volume 60; Issue 1; Pages 16-27 Abstract OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two interventions (sensorimotor and therapeutic practice) on handwriting and selected sensorimotor components in elementary-age children. METHOD: Thirty-eight children 6 to 11 years of age with handwriting dysfunction but no identified educational need were randomly assigned to one of the two intervention groups or a control group. Intervention groups met four times per week over 5 weeks. Handwriting was measured pre- and postintervention using the Test of Handwriting Skills. Visual perception (motor-reduced), visual-motor integration, proprioception, and in-hand manipulation were also measured. RESULTS: Children receiving therapeutic practice moderately improved handwriting whereas children receiving sensorimotor intervention declined in handwriting performance. The control group did not change significantly. Sensorimotor impairment was noted at pretest in three or four components and selected sensorimotor component function improved with intervention. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic practice was more effective than sensorimotor-based intervention at improving handwriting performance. Children who received sensorimotor intervention improved in some sensorimotor components but also experienced a clinically meaningful decline in handwriting performance. 2) Effect of an occupational intervention on printing in children with economic disadvantages C. Q. Peterson and D. L. Nelson (2003) Journal Title: American Journal of Occupational Therapy Volume 57; Issue 2; Pages 152-60 Abstract OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether an occupational therapy intervention improved an academic outcome (D'Nealian printing) in a school setting. The study specifically examined improvement in printing skills in economically disadvantaged first graders who were at risk academically and socially. The intervention was based on an occupational framework including biomechanical, sensorimotor, and teaching-learning strategies. METHOD: The final sample consisted of 59 first-grade children from a low socioeconomic urban elementary school-based health center who were randomly assigned to an occupational therapy intervention or a control condition. In addition to regular academic instruction, the intervention group received 10 weeks of training twice a week for 30-minute sessions. The control group received only regular academic instruction. Subjects were pretested and posttested on the Minnesota Handwriting Test, which assesses legibility, space, line, si ze, and form (the main variables in this study) as well as speed. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis of variance confirmed that the gain scores in the occupational therapy intervention group were significantly greater than those in the control group. The Hotelling-Lawley Trace value was 0.606, with F(5, 53) = 6.43, p < .0001). The estimated effect size (eta2) was .378, with an observed power of .994. Largest gains for the intervention group were in the areas of space, line, and size. CONCLUSION: The intervention group demonstrated a significant increase in scores on the posttest of the Minnesota Handwriting Test when compared to the scores of the control group. Occupational intervention was effective in improving the academic outcome of printing in children who are economically disadvantaged Chris Nahrwold -----Original Message----- From: Renee Lowrey <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Feb 19, 2010 7:18 am Subject: [OTlist] Evidence? I am working in a school district where we provide ‘hands-on’ consultation. I work with a student to see which intervention strategies (accommodations/modifications) will work best and then education teachers on how to use and follow through with the recommendations. I recently completed an eval on a student for handwriting legibility (per mom). I recommended acc/mods for home & school and provided some strengthening activities that could be incorporated into the natural context of his school day. Unfortunately, but mom was not satisfied with these recommendations. She wants us to work on hand strengthening (like in the a clinic) setting so his hand doesn’t get tired when he writes (He’s in 3rd grade now). No matter how I explain how services are better provided in the context of the classroom and how the acc/mods will allow him to participate in his education, she is not satisfied. She doesn’t want him to depend on the acc/mods, which she thinks will result in decreased hand strength and therefore illegible handwriting. Does anyone know of any research regarding the efficacy, or lack thereof, of hand strengthening exercises and improved hand writing; or of the benefits of a consultation model rather than an direct, pull-out model in school systems? Any info will be most appreciated. Thanks, Renée L., OTR/L -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] -- Options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
