Beyond the Observation: The Importance of a Comprehensive Initial OT Evaluation in Elementary School
By Irene Hannam, MS OTR/L
Occupational therapists (OTs) in school-based settings are vital members of the educational team who support students’ ability to participate and succeed in school routines. Among the most common concerns is difficulty with handwriting—issues such as poor letter formation, inconsistent placement, incorrect sizing, illegible output, reduced speed and fluency, and irregular spacing can significantly interfere with a student’s ability to express themselves and keep up with classroom demands.
In many school environments, time constraints or procedural expectations may lead to quick screenings or informal observations. While helpful for initial impressions, these snapshots often miss the underlying causes of a student’s difficulties. A truly effective OT evaluation goes beyond surface-level handwriting samples. It requires a comprehensive, data-driven, whole-child approach that includes standardized and functional skills assessments, clinical observations, and input from teachers and caregivers.
When a student demonstrates handwriting or written language difficulties, these challenges are rarely isolated. Instead, they often signal broader underlying deficits in areas such as visual-motor integration, fine motor coordination, executive functioning, or emotional regulation. Occupational therapists act as developmental detectives—tasked with uncovering these root causes through comprehensive, layered evaluations. By looking beyond the handwriting sample and analyzing the contributing domains, OTs ensure that interventions are not just reactive but proactive—addressing the source of difficulty before it leads to more significant academic, behavioral, or self-esteem issues later on (Dinehart & Manfra, 2013; Feder & Majnemer, 2007; Missiuna et al., 2012).
Standardized assessments provide objective data to compare a child’s performance with age-matched peers, identify specific areas of concern, and justify school-based services. When combined with functional checklists and contextual observations, they allow occupational therapists to design highly targeted interventions that foster academic success.
While standardized assessments are important during initial evaluations to uncover root causes and establish performance baselines, their role in reevaluations should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For some students—particularly those with new concerns, stalled progress, or shifting areas of difficulty—standardized testing can offer valuable updated data. However, for others making clear gains or with needs that are well-documented through observations and work samples, a function-based approach may be more appropriate. Prioritizing assessments that are purposeful, meaningful, and responsive to the student’s current profile ensures both clinical effectiveness and efficient use of educational time.
Reassessment decisions should be flexible and intentional. Standardized tests should be repeated only when their results will meaningfully influence service eligibility or intervention planning. In many cases, naturalistic observations, classroom performance measures, and functional assessments and checklists offer more relevant insight into student growth—especially when aligned with IEP goals and academic expectations. This balanced approach reduces unnecessary testing, upholds best practices, and ensures that therapy remains student-centered.
Current AOTA guidance recommends asking whether repeating a norm-referenced test will change service decisions; if not, function-based data may suffice (AOTA, 2022).
Evaluating the Whole Child: Domains of the Initial Occupational Therapy Assessment:
1. Motor and Postural Skills:
Why It Matters: Motor and postural skills are foundational to a child’s ability to participate in classroom tasks like handwriting, scissor use, and seated work. Adequate muscle tone supports fine motor precision, endurance, and utensil use. Postural control and core strength provide the stability needed for upright sitting and controlled arm movements during table-top activities. Retained primitive reflexesbeyond early childhood may interfere with posture, pencil grasp, visual tracking, and coordinated movement, limiting a student’s ability to engage in age-appropriate fine motor tasks. Motor planning (praxis) refers to the ability to conceive, sequence, and execute novel or multi-step movements. When this skill is underdeveloped, students may struggle with tasks like forming letters, copying shapes, or adjusting grip and pressure when writing—resulting in inconsistent or laborious output. Students in grades 3–5 with motor planning challenges may struggle to sequence movements for writing, frequently lose their place when copying, have inconsistent letter formation, and require extra time to initiate or complete multi-step classroom tasks.
Research Highlights:
· Retained reflexes correlate with poor trunk rotation, fine motor coordination, and postural control (Gieysztor et al., 2018)
· Richards et al. (2022) reported a statistically significant relationship between retained reflexes and handwriting difficulty, supporting the inclusion of reflex screening in OT evaluations.
· Reflex integration programs improve motor coordination, visual tracking, and academic engagement (Grigg et al., 2023).
· Grigg et al. (2023) demonstrated that reflex integration programs improved motor coordination, visual tracking, and reading engagement—reinforcing the importance of motor readiness in academic success.
· Dynamic postural adjustments are linked to CNS integrity and seated stability (Hadders-Algra, 2005). Inadequate postural tone can compromise the ability to maintain a stable seated posture and coordinate fine motor actions (Hadders-Algra, 2005).
· Motor coordination predicts long-term academic and psychosocial outcomes (Wilson et al., 2013; Rigoli et al., 2012; Piek et al., 2008).
· Functional Skills Observations: Range of motion, tone, posture during assessment, primitive reflex screening.
· For more information: https://writeexpectations.com/blog?blogcategory=Primitive+Reflex and https://writeexpectations.com/blog?blogcategory=Motor+Planning
2. Fine Motor Skills and Dexterity
· Why It Matters: Fine motor control underpins pencil grip, pressure control, and the formation of legible letters. Students with reduced dexterity often fatigue quickly or avoid written tasks altogether, impacting written output and academic engagement.
· Research Highlight: Fine motor dexterity—including precision, sequencing, and muscular control—is critical for handwriting success and efficient classroom participation in early elementary students.
o Telerehabilitation-based fine motor training significantly improved BOT-2 and most domains of the Minnesota Handwriting Assessment in children with ADHD including writing speed, alignment, spacing, and size (Kaplan Kılıç et al., 2025).
o Structured interventions improved fine motor coordination and handwriting performance (Lelong et al., 2021).
· Standardized Measures: BOT-2, PDMS-3, Nine-Hole Peg Test (Deitz et al., 2007; Grice et al., 2003)
· Functional Skills Observations: Thumb-to-finger opposition, finger control, arch development, manual dexterity, hand/pinch strength, bilateral hand skills, in-hand manipulation
· For more information: https://writeexpectations.com/blog?blogcategory=Fine+Motor+Skills
3. Visual-Motor Integration (VMI)
· Why It Matters: Visual-motor integration (VMI) is the ability to coordinate visual input with appropriate motor responses—specifically, using visual information to guide hand movements. Deficits in VMI often lead to decreased pencil control, misaligned or poorly formed letters, inconsistent sizing, poor spacing, and difficulty copying from the board or a worksheet. These challenges can significantly impact handwriting legibility, writing fluency, and overall academic performance.
· Research Highlight:
o VMI deficits predict poor handwriting legibility and increased cognitive load (Tseng & Murray, 1994; Volman et al., 2006).
o A meta-analysis confirmed moderate correlation between VMI and handwriting performance (Lu et al., 2024).
o Recent evidence shows that visual-motor integration and motor coordination are uniquely associated with writing proficiency, even when controlling for attention and cognitive factors (Carames, Chan, & Kofler, 2022).
· Standardized Measures: Beery VMI, DTVP-3
· Functional Skills Observations: Varies by grade – Tracing, maze paths, connecting dots, coloring, scissor skills, prewriting strokes, draw-a-person, and design copy.
· For more information on visual motor skills: https://writeexpectations.com/blog/f/from-scribbles-to-sentences?blogcategory=Visual+Motor+Skills
4. Visual Perceptual Skills (VPS) and Visual Processing
· Why It Matters: Visual perceptual skills enable students to interpret and make sense of visual information, which is essential for accurate and organized written work. Deficits in VPS can lead to difficulties recognizing letter forms, maintaining proper spacing, copying from the board, and consistently orienting letters—resulting in disorganized, illegible handwriting and poor written language output. Specific subskills such as visual discrimination, spatial relationships, visual memory, figure–ground perception, form constancy, and visual sequential memory are all critical for recognizing, recalling, and reproducing written symbols.
· ResearchHighlight: Visual perceptual subskills—including visual discrimination, spatial relationships, figure–ground perception, visual closure, and visual sequential memory—are significant predictors of handwriting legibility and organizational consistency in school-aged children. Subskills like visual closure and spatial relationships strongly predict handwriting outcomes (Lee, 2021; Volman et al., 2006).
· Standardized tools: TVPS-4 (7 VPS subtests), MVPT-4 (4 VPS subtests), DTVP-3 (3 VPS subtests)
· Functional Skills Observations: Use Write Expectations VPS Checklist.
5. Sensory Processing and Self-Regulation
· Why It Matters: Sensory modulation challenges can affect posture, body awareness, and tolerance of classroom stimuli, which in turn impact attention and written output. Students may have difficulty remaining seated, adjusting pencil grip, or filtering background noise—all of which hinder sustained writing performance.
· Research Highlight: Sensory modulation and motor control account for up to 26% of handwriting variance (Klein et al., 2011; Denton et al., 2006).
· Assessment Tools: Sensory Profile 2, SPM, teacher/parent checklists to gather detailed information about the child’s sensory processing patterns at school and at home.
6. Cognitive and Socio-Emotional Factors
1. Why It Matters: Cognitive and socio-emotional factors—such as working memory, inhibitory control, attention, motivation, anxiety, and self-esteem—play a critical role in how students initiate, sustain, and complete written tasks. In cases of suspected dysgraphia, these domains can directly influence written expression, fluency, and consistency.
2. Research Highlight:
- Dysgraphia is a multifactorial condition involving interacting components: neuromuscular/fine motor skills (traditionally OT‑assessed), visual–motor integration and visual perceptual skills (OT/evaluation tools), orthographic processing (from educational diagnostics), executive functioning and attention, and socio‑emotional factors like motivation and anxiety—all of which shape a child’s written output Dysgraphia factors (Berninger & Wolf, 2016).
- EF (such as inhibition, updating (working memory), and shifting) tasks predict written expression, spelling and writing fluency (Soto et al., 2021; Capodieci et al., 2022).
3. Assessment Tools: OTs evaluating handwriting and written output should collaborate with educational diagnosticians and psychologists to integrate these essential influences into their assessments.
Under-Recognized OT Needs: When Referrals Miss the Root Cause:
Although occupational therapy referrals most commonly cite handwriting, fine motor, or sensory processing concerns, many other issues are rooted in OT-relevant domains but referred under different categories such as reading, behavior, or academic underperformance. This mismatch can result in delayed or misdirected intervention, particularly when surface-level symptoms mask deeper challenges in visual processing, postural control, or sensory integration.
Occupational therapists are uniquely positioned to uncover these hidden barriers through comprehensive evaluations that go beyond handwriting samples and brief teacher checklists. The following chart illustrates common academic and behavioral referral reasons that frequently fall within the scope of OT practice—yet are often missed by school teams during initial referrals:
These referral patterns are supported by research showing that handwriting and academic challenges often stem from visual-motor, oculomotor, sensory, and cognitive domains—which may not be immediately recognized unless a trained OT evaluates the child holistically (Scheiman, 2011; Missiuna et al., 2008; Capodieci et al., 2022).
Up to 85% of OT referrals are initiated due to handwriting difficulties (Case-Smith et al., 2014; Feder & Majnemer, 2007). Yet, many students struggling with reading, copying, or behavior could benefit from OT intervention—even if handwriting isn’t the primary concern.
This is why a comprehensive OT evaluation is beneficial: it serves as both a diagnostic tool and an educational guide, clarifying which students may be falling through the cracks. By systematically screening across domains such as visual-motor integration, visual perception, postural control, oculomotor skills, and sensory regulation, occupational therapists provide invaluable insight into the underlying causes of academic struggles—helping school teams make data-informed intervention decisions.
Tip for Teams: When a student is referred for a special education evaluation for issues like reading challenges or fatigue, disorganized work, difficulty producing written work, or inattentiveness, consider an OT consultation—even if the student’s handwriting appears “fine.” These functional concerns often trace back to neurological, visual processing, retained primitive reflexes, or sensory processing/ motor planning challenges that OT is trained to assess.
This comprehensive model emphasizes that a quality occupational therapy initial evaluation must extend beyond surface-level handwriting samples. It should explore how each of the contributing domains—motor, visual, cognitive, and emotional—may be influencing a student’s written language performance. Including cognitive and socio-emotional data enhances the interpretation of both standardized assessments and functional evaluations/observations, ensuring that recommendations are relevant, individualized, and effective.
Collaborative input from school psychologists, educational diagnosticians, teachers, and caregivers—along with a careful review of psychoeducational testing—provides essential insight into how cognitive and emotional regulation intersect with motor performance. This interdisciplinary perspective ensures that occupational therapy services are aligned with the student’s broader educational and emotional needs.
The Role of Standardized Testing in a Whole-Child Evaluation:
1. Objective Measurement: Standardized assessments offer norm-referenced scores (standard scores, percentiles) to objectively compare a student’s performance with developmental expectations. This data allows therapists to clarify the severity of deficits and prioritize interventions (Deitz et al., 2007).
2. Identification of Specific Deficits: Each assessment targets specific skill sets—fine motor control, visual-spatial processing, visual memory, etc.—helping OTs identify root causes that are not always visible through observation alone, including structured observational tools and computer-based handwriting analysis systems, which can offer deeper insight into the mechanics of writing (Rosenblum, 2018).
3. Targeted Intervention Planning: Standardized scores highlight student strengths and challenges, guiding goal development and individualized intervention strategies (Case-Smith & O’Brien, 2015).
4. Justification for School-Based Services: In school systems, therapy services often require data that demonstrates educational impact. Standardized testing provides defensible evidence that supports the need for intervention and aligns with IDEA eligibility criteria.
When Standardized Testing May Not Be Feasible:
Despite its benefits, standardized testing may not be appropriate for every student:
1. Attention or Behavioral Challenges: Students with limited focus or compliance may be unable to complete testing protocols reliably.
2. Cognitive Limitations: Standardized items may not reflect true ability if the student cannot comprehend directions.
3. Physical Constraints: Students with significant motor disabilities may be unable to engage with test materials as intended.
In these cases, in-depth clinical observation, play-based tasks, and functional classroom assessments provide meaningful information. While they lack the statistical comparison of standardized tools, they reflect authentic performance in context (AOTA, 2020).
Linking Evaluation to IEP Goals and Intervention Planning:
A comprehensive OT evaluation—whether standardized, observational, or both—serves as the foundation for writing meaningful, functional IEP goals.
1. Crafting SMART Goals: Use evaluation data to create goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
2. Tailoring Interventions: Focus therapy activities on specific deficits, from visual tracking to motor coordination to executive functioning.
3. Monitoring Progress: Use baseline scores and documented behaviors to track growth and adjust support as needed.
4. Fostering Collaboration: Sharing clear, evidence-based findings with teachers and families ensures that everyone supports the child’s progress in a unified way.
Ensuring Accountability and Promoting Early Support:
Early identification and intervention are essential to preventing long-term academic and emotional setbacks. A standardized, whole-child evaluation offers far more than a percentage of legible letters—it uncovers the underlying reasons behind a student’s struggles with written output. Solely relying on brief observation or surface data may overlook critical deficits in visual-motor integration, executive functioning, vision, attention, or fine motor control.
As academic expectations increase across grade levels, students who were only “mildly struggling” may fall further behind, leading to frustration, reduced confidence, and even behavioral concerns. Without a clear understanding of the root cause, these students are at risk for misidentification or missed opportunities for support.
Standardized testing, combined with structured observational tools and functional checklists, enables occupational therapists to:
1. Identify Hidden Challenges Early: Subtle deficits in foundational skills may not be obvious in lower grades but can compound and manifest as more serious academic barriers over time.
2. Plan Proactively: By identifying specific areas of need, therapists can implement targeted, skill-building interventions before students reach a point of crisis.
3. Support Transparent Communication: Objective data and comprehensive documentation help OTs clearly explain findings to teachers, parents, and school teams—ensuring that all stakeholders understand the rationale for services and support strategies.
By taking the time to assess the whole child—OTs uphold best practices, foster early success, and reduce the long-term impact of unidentified challenges.
Conclusion: A Best-Practice Approach for School-Based OTs:
A thorough occupational therapy evaluation—rooted in standardized testing and broadened through a whole-child perspective—ensures that the real causes of handwriting and academic challenges are identified early and addressed effectively. When paired with structured checklists and contextual observations, this approach empowers therapists to:
1. Prevent small issues from becoming entrenched learning barriers
2. Design targeted, evidence-based interventions
3. Advocate for services with clear data
4. Help students gain confidence and function more independently across school tasks
By moving beyond brief screenings and embracing a layered, research-informed evaluation model, school-based occupational therapists can make a profound and lasting impact on student development.
Note: A forthcoming resource, the Comprehensive Functional Occupational Therapy Initial Assessment Toolkit, will include structured checklists, observation guide, and assessment templates, across motor, sensory, visual, cognitive, and self-regulatory domains—designed to support best-practice evaluations in school settings.
References:
· American Occupational Therapy Association. (2022). School-based occupational therapy and related services practice guideline. AOTA Press.
· Berninger, V. W., & Wolf, B. (2016). Teaching students with dyslexia, dysgraphia, OWL LD, and dyscalculia: Lessons from teaching and science (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
· Capodieci, A., Costa, S., & Scaini, S. (2022). Executive functions and writing skills in children with and without ADHD. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 11(2), 101–114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34570539/
· Carames, C. N., Chan, E. S. M., & Kofler, M. J. (2022). Is there a relation between visual motor integration and academic achievement in school‑aged children with and without ADHD? Child Neuropsychology, 28(2), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2021.1967913
· Case-Smith, J. (2002). Effectiveness of school-based occupational therapy intervention on handwriting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.1.17
· Case-Smith, J., & O’Brien, J. C. (2015). Occupational therapy for children and adolescents (7th ed.). Elsevier.
· Cermak, S. A., & Larkin, D. (2002). Developmental coordination disorder. Delmar Thomson Learning.
· Cornhill, H., & Case-Smith, J. (1996). Factors that relate to good and poor handwriting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(9), 732–739. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.50.9.732
· Deitz, J. C., Kartin, D., & Kopp, K. (2007). Review of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2). Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 27(4), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/J006v27n04_06
· Dinehart, L. H., & Manfra, L. (2013). Associations between early fine motor development and later math and reading achievement in early elementary school. Early Education and Development, 24(2), 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.636729
· Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(4), 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00312.x
· Gieysztor, E. Z., Choińska, A. M., & Paprocka-Borowicz, M. (2018). Persistence of primitive reflexes and associated motor problems in healthy preschool children. Archives of Medical Science, 14(1), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.60503
· Grice, K. O., Vogel, K. A., Le, V., Mitchell, A., Muniz, S., & Vollmer, M. A. (2003). Adult norms for a commercially available Nine Hole Peg Test for finger dexterity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(5), 570–573. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.5.570
· Grigg, T. M., Culpan, I., & Fox-Turnbull, W. (2023). Primitive reflex integration and reading achievement in the classroom. Journal of Neurology and Experimental Neuroscience, 9(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.17756/jnen.2023-103
· Hadders-Algra, M. (2005). Development of postural control during the first 18 months of life. Neural Plasticity, 12(2–3), 99–108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16097478/
· Hernandez, R., Gatz, M., Schneider, S., Finkel, D., Darling, J. E., Orriens, B., Liu, Y., & Kapteyn, A. (2024). Visual-Motor Integration (VMI) Is Also Relevant for Computer, Smartphone, and Tablet Use by Adults: Introducing the Brief Box Clicking Test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(5), 7805205010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050680
· Kaplan Kılıç, B., Bumin, G., & Öğütlü, H. (2025). Effect of telerehabilitation on handwriting performance in children with ADHD: A randomized controlled trial. Child: Care, Health and Development, 51(2), e70055. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.70055
· Klein, S., Guiltner, V., Sollereder, P., & Cui, Y. (2011). Relationships between fine-motor, visual-motor, and visual-perception scores and handwriting legibility and speed. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 31(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2010.541753
· Lee, H. S. (2021). Visual perceptual skills as predictors of handwriting skills of children grades 1–3. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 14(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2021.1959484
· Lelong, M., Joly-Pottuz, B., Albaret, J.-M., & Zanone, P. G. (2021). Rehabilitation interventions for children with developmental coordination disorder: A scoping review. BMC Pediatrics, 21, 505. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-02916-5
· Lu, H., Leung, F. K. S., & Fan, Z. (2024). A meta-analysis on the relation between handwriting and visual-motor integration. Learning and Individual Differences, 105, 102404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102404
· Missiuna, C., Rivard, L., & Pollock, N. (2008). They’re bright but can’t write: Developmental coordination disorder in school-aged children. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 4(1), Article 1. https://canchild.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/TheyreBrightButCantWrite.pdf
· Piek, J. P., Dawson, L., Smith, L. M., & Gasson, N. (2008). The role of early fine and gross motor development on later motor and cognitive ability. Human Movement Science, 27(5), 668–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.11.002
· Richards, L., Avery, R., Gray, S., & Price, R. (2022). Retained reflexes and handwriting difficulty. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(Suppl. 1), 7610505010p1. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.76S1-RP10
· Rigoli, D., Piek, J. P., Kane, R., & Oosterlaan, J. (2012). Motor coordination, working memory, and academic achievement in adolescents: A mediation model. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(7), 766–780. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22777140/
· Rosenblum, S. (2018). Handwriting measures as reflectors of executive functions among adults with and without dysgraphia. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 25(1), 20–28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3693067/
· Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 225–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1
· Scheiman, M. (2011). Understanding and managing vision deficits: A guide for occupational therapists (3rd ed.). Slack Incorporated.
· Sharma, Y., & Saxena, A. (2023). Problems associated with persisting primitive reflex in healthy school-going children. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 17(12), SC05–SC08. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/75507.20016
· Smith, J. L., & Hong, E. (2000). Normative and validation studies of the Nine Hole Peg Test with children. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 90(3), 823–843. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2000.90.3.823
· Soto, E. F., Irwin, L. N., Chan, E. S. M., Spiegel, J. A., & Kofler, M. J. (2021). Executive functions and writing skills in children with and without ADHD. Neuropsychology, 35(8), 792–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000769
· Taverna, L., Tremolada, M., Tosetto, B., Dozza, L., & Zanin, S. R. (2020). Impact of psycho-educational activities on visual-motor integration and name writing in first graders: A kinematic pilot study. Children, 7(4), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/children7040027
· Tseng, M. H., & Murray, E. A. (1994). Differences in perceptual-motor measures in children with good and poor handwriting. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 14(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944929401400102
· Van Balen, L. C., Dijkstra, L. J., & Hadders-Algra, M. (2012). Development of postural adjustments during reaching in typically developing infants from 4 to 18 months. Experimental Brain Research, 220(2), 109–119. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22623096/
· Volman, M. J. M., van Schendel, B. M., & Jongmans, M. J. (2006). Handwriting difficulties in primary school children: A search for underlying mechanisms. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60(4), 451–460. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.60.4.451
· Wilson, P. H., Ruddock, S., Smits-Engelsman, B., Polatajko, H., & Blank, R. (2013). Understanding performance deficits in developmental coordination disorder: A meta-analysis. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 55(3), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04436.x
About the Author:
Irene Hannam is a licensed occupational therapist specializing in fine motor skills development and handwriting intervention. She is passionate about helping children develop the skills needed for successful daily living and academic achievement.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended for informational purposes only and does not substitute professional medical advice. If you have concerns about your child’s fine motor development, please consult a qualified occupational therapist or healthcare provider.
