SOS: A Screening Instrument to Identify Children with Handwriting Impairments

Abstract

Poor handwriting has been shown to be associated with developmental disorders such as Developmental Coordination Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, autism, and learning disorders. Handwriting difficulties could lead to academic underachievement and poor self-esteem. Therapeutic intervention has been shown to be effective in treating children with poor handwriting, making early identification critical. The SOS test (Systematic Screening for Handwriting Difficulties) has been developed for this purpose. A child copies a sample of writing within 5 min. Handwriting quality is evaluated using six criteria and writing speed is measured. The Dutch SOS test was administered to 860 Flemish children (7-12 years). Inter- and intrarater reliability was excellent. Test-retest reliability was moderate. A correlation coefficient of 0.70 between SOS and "Concise Assessment Methods of Children Handwriting" test (Dutch version) confirmed convergent validity. The SOS allowed discrimination between typically developing children and children in special education, males and females, and different age groups.

Full text

Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, Early Online:1–14, 2012
C
2012 by Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Available online at http://informahealthcare.com/potp
DOI: 10.3109/01942638.2012.678971
SOS: A Screening Instrument to Identify Children
with Handwriting Impairments
Hilde Van Waelvelde, PT, PhD1, Tinneke Hellinckx, PT, MSc2, Wim Peersman,
MSc1, & Bouwien C. M. Smits-Engelsman, PT, PhD3
1Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Arteveldehogeschool University College
and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, 2Department of Experimental Clinical and
Health Psychology Developmental Disorders, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium,
3Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, K.U. Leuven, Belgium
ABSTRACT. Poor handwriting has been shown to be associated with developmental
disorders such as Developmental Coordination Disorder, Attention Decit Hyperac-
tivity Disorder, autism, and learning disorders. Handwriting difculties could lead to
academic underachievement and poor self-esteem. Therapeutic intervention has been
shown to be effective in treating children with poor handwriting, making early identica-
tion critical. The SOS test (Systematic Screening for Handwriting Difculties) has been
developed for this purpose. A child copies a sample of writing within 5 min. Handwriting
quality is evaluated using six criteria and writing speed is measured. The Dutch SOS test
was administered to 860 Flemish children (7–12 years). Inter- and intrarater reliability
was excellent. Test–retest reliability was moderate. A correlation coefcient of 0.70 be-
tween SOS and “Concise Assessment Methods of Children Handwriting” test (Dutch
version) conrmed convergent validity. The SOS allowed discrimination between typ-
ically developing children and children in special education, males and females, and
different age groups.
KEYWORDS. Dysgraphia, handwriting difculties, reliability, validity
Children with handwriting problems frequently experience distress and frustration
when asked to complete their homework, record diary entries, or write an essay.
Forming letters requires more effort for these children and the child may forget
what he wanted to write. Illegible writing, poor handwriting speed, and labored
writing are the core handwriting problems experienced by elementary school chil-
dren (Rosenblum, Weiss, & Parush, 2003). Children with developmental disorders
in particular demonstrate handwriting difculties.
Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is a prevalent yet under-
recognized developmental problem that signicantly affects every day functioning
Address correspondence to: Hilde Van Waelvelde, Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Artevelde-
hogeschool University College and Ghent University, Campus Heymans 2B3, De Pintelaan 185, B-9000
Ghent, Belgium (E-mail: hilde.vanwaelvelde@ugent.be).
(Received 2 February 2012; accepted 2 March 2012)
1
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

2Van Waelvelde et al.
(APA, 2000). Poor handwriting is the most frequent symptom in children with DCD
(Geuze, Jongmans, Schoemaker, & Smits-Engelsman, 2001; Rosenblum & Livneh-
Zirinski, 2008). DCD has also been reported more frequently in children with
Attention Decit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Flapper, Houwen, & Schoe-
maker, 2006) and autism (Fuentes, Mostofsky, & Bastian, 2009). Kirby, Sugden,
Beveridge, and Edwards (2008) described the interaction between reading disorder
or spelling disorders and handwriting difculties. In the Netherlands, 25%–50% of
all interventions carried out by private practice pediatric physiotherapists involves
handwriting remediation (Bosga-Stork et al., 2009).
Handwriting difculties or dysgraphia was dened by Hamstra-Bletz and Bl¨
ote
(1993) as a disorder related to the motor output of writing in the absence of intellec-
tual or known neurological decits. Children with handwriting difculties typically
experience challenges keeping up with the volume of written work required, which
may impede academic progress (Feder & Majnemer, 2007). Severe handwriting
difculties lead to academic underachievement unless compensations are made to
complete school work. Moreover, secondary problems such as lower self-esteem
or lack of condence often accompany handwriting difculties (Laszlo & Bairstow,
1984). Despite the widespread use of computers, legible handwriting remains an
important everyday life skill that deserves greater attention from educators and
health practitioners (Feder & Majnemer, 2007). Importantly, teachers and parents
frequently ascribe the problems to laziness or lack of motivation, which causes
frustration and disappointment for the child (Smits-Engelsman, Schoemaker, Van
Galen, & Michels, 1996). Repeated failures will likely lower the child’s motivation
resulting in a vicious cycle.
Evidence suggests that occupational therapy or physical therapy can have a
positive effect on handwriting skill (Jongmans, Linthorst-Bakker, Westenberg, &
Smits-Engelsman, 2003; Ratzon, Efraim, & Bar, 2007). Thus, timely identication
and assessment of handwriting difculties is important to initiating intervention.
Teachers are best positioned to identify children with handwriting difculties.
Before referring a child to a diagnostic center, it can be helpful if the teacher can
conrm any suspected problems in handwriting performance with a quick, sensitive,
reliable, and valid screening instrument. This is especially important in light of the
long waiting lists at diagnostic centers. If a teacher can identify writing difculties
early, focused remediation strategies can begin. A child who is not developing hand-
writing skills as expected in the school system could rst be offered supplementary
handwriting practice or training. If insufcient progress is made after 3 months of
supplemental training, Overvelde and colleagues (2011) suggest that implementing
a motor-based intervention can be an option to consider. Since poor writing co-
occurs with various developmental disorders, such as DCD, Attention Decit Hy-
peractivity Disorder, autism, and dyslexia, screening for children at risk for hand-
writing difculties is even more important than in typically developing children.
Several handwriting tests are available worldwide but vary in terms of what they
aim to measure. Some tests evaluate (1) handwriting speed and/or (2) legibility or
readability judged globally and/or (3) specic features that characterize readability
(e.g., letter formation, spacing between letters and words, and the degree of line
slant). Feder and Majnemer (2003) offered an excellent review of the ve hand-
writing assessments most commonly discussed in the literature. However, none of
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

Screening Handwriting Impairment 3
these tests could be used for screening Dutch children. First, none of these tests is
available in Dutch. Cultural differences in language, alphabet, and education sys-
tem require tests to have culturally adapted norms. One method of validating a
handwriting evaluation tool would be to translate an existing instrument and stan-
dardize it to a particular population. But to be useful as a screening tool, the test
administration time should be brief. The Minnesota Handwriting Assessment is a
commonly used test with good psychometric properties and takes only a few min-
utes to administer (Reisman, 1993). However, in several educational systems, words
are written as continuous cursive script. The words in the Minnesota Handwriting
Assessment are written in print and as such, the test is not valid for children learn-
ing a cursive font. Another short screening tool, available in English and evaluating
cursive font is the Children’s Handwriting Evaluation Scale-Manuscript (CHES-M),
developed by Phelps and Stempel (1987). However, to the best of our knowledge,
there is no information available on test–retest reliability, or on validity of this test.
Moreover, according to Reisman (1991), a disadvantage of the CHES-M is that the
scoring system is not well dened.
In the Dutch speaking part of Belgium and in the Netherlands, the most com-
monly used handwriting evaluation tool used by therapists is the ‘Beknopte Beo-
ordelingsmethode voor Kinder Handschriften (BHK) (Concise Assessment Meth-
ods of Children Handwriting; Hamstra-Bletz, de Bie, & De Brinker, 1987). The
BHK is designed to measure handwriting quality on the basis of a completed piece
of cursive writing by children in elementary school. Internal consistency between
all 13 items was reported to be 0.52 suggesting that different aspects of writing per-
formance are measured. Furthermore, the BHK has been shown to be sensitive
enough to be used as an evaluation tool (Jongmans et al., 2003; Smits-Engelsman
et al., 1996).
The writing task consists of copying a standard text in 5 min or at least ve lines if
the child is a very slow writer. The text is copied on unruled paper. The BHK eval-
uates both quality and speed of writing. In addition, it offers 13 criteria to evaluate
the quality of the handwriting product. Unfortunately, the BHK is not suitable for
screening. The scoring of the test needs extensive training and takes about 15–20
min if the tester is experienced. Moreover, only preliminary cutoff scores to classify
children as good, poor, and dysgraphic writers are available, based on the evalua-
tion of writings of 10 children by 28 raters (Hamstra-Bletz et al., 1987).
The SOS test (“Systematische Opsporing van Schrijfmotorische problemen” or
“Systematic Screening of Handwriting Difculties”) (Smits-Engelsman, Stevens,
Vrenken, & van Hagen, 2005) was developed to fulll the need for a short, effective
handwriting screening tool. The SOS is based on the BHK but can be scored in a
shorter timeframe. This offers the opportunity to use the written text of a child rst
for screening and if necessary to score the complete BHK if more detailed informa-
tion for developing an intervention plan is necessary. In a pilot study (n=128), the
six most discriminating items explained 65% of the variance, and were thus selected
from the 13 BHK criteria. They were reformulated and the scoring was simplied
to develop the SOS test.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate intra-, interrater, and test–retest
reliability of the SOS. The convergent validity of the test was evaluated by compar-
ing the test results of the SOS to those on the BHK using the same piece of writing.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

4Van Waelvelde et al.
Discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing the SOS results from typically
developing children with the results of children with a learning disability. Gender
and age variations were also examined. The hypotheses related to this study were
that (a) children with learning disabilities would have more writing problems, (b)
females were expected to write better and faster than males (Berninger & Fuller,
1992; Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008; Ziviani & Watson-
Will, 1998) and (c) writing quality and writing speed were expected to improve from
7 through 12 years of age.
METHOD
Participants
Children, age 7–12 years, were recruited from mainstream schools and from special
education schools. Special schools enroll children with an intelligence quotient (IQ)
of at least 70 but with developmental challenges. Parents signed informed consent
forms allowing their child to participate and each child was asked for verbal assent.
A total of 629 children attending nine mainstream schools, in areas with different
degrees of urbanization in Flanders (Belgium) were recruited. Children with a sen-
sory, physical, or intellectual disability known to the teachers were excluded from
the sample in the mainstream schools. The parents of 26 children did not give per-
mission to participate in the study. The nal sample thus consisted of 603 children
attending mainstream schools. In ve special education schools, 268 children were
recruited. Nine parents refused permission for their children to participate in the
study. Therefore, the nal sample consisted of 259 children from special education
settings.
“Systematische Opsporing Schrijfproblemen” or SOS Test
The child received a sheet with a printed story composed of sentences with increas-
ing complexity, printed in decreasing height, and was provided with a blank sheet to
copy the text. A standard pencil or pen is used to write and erasers are not allowed.
All other materials were removed from the table. The child had 5 min to copy a part
of the story with the instruction to write as quickly and as neatly as they usually do.
If the child had not copied the rst ve lines after 5 min, the tester notes how much
the child has written and allowed the child to continue until the rst ve lines were
complete.
Writing speed was measured by counting the number of letters produced in ex-
actly 5 min.
To evaluate the quality of the handwriting, the rst ve lines were used to eval-
uate six well-described criteria: (1) uency in letter formation: abrupt directional
changes in the writing trace, (2) uency in connections between letters, (3) letter
height, (4) regularity of letter height, (5) space between words, and (6) straightness
or regularity of the sentence. Examples of the criteria are presented in Figures 1
and 2. For each criterion, the manual provides several examples. The items evalu-
ating letter height, regularity of letter height, and straightness of the sentence were
measured using a transparent sheet provided with the manual. A criterion is scored
as zero when it does not appear in more than one of the ve lines. A score of 1 is
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

Screening Handwriting Impairment 5
FIGURE 1. Example of handwriting with abrupt directional changes in letter formation.
FIGURE 2. Example of handwriting with irregular line path.
provided when the handwriting difculty appears in two or three lines and a score
of 2 is given when it appears in more than three lines. There is one exception to this
scoring principle. The score 0, 1, or 2 is determined by the mean letter size for the
criterion for letter height. The total score range is between 0 and 12, with a high
score corresponding to poor handwriting quality.
BHK Test
The test procedure is identical to the SOS test, except for the scoring system. Hand-
writing is evaluated by assessing the following 13 characteristics: (1) the writing is
too large, (2) widening of left-hand margin, (3) poor letter or word alignment, (4)
insufcient word spacing, (5) acute turns in connecting joins to letters, (6) irregular-
ities in joins and/or absence of joins, (7) collisions of letters, (8) inconsistent letter
size, (9) incorrect relative height of the various kinds of letters, (10) letter distortion,
(11) ambiguous letter forms, (12) correction of letter forms and, (13) unsteady writ-
ing trace. The items are measured on an ordinal scale with six categories resulting in
a score from 0 to 5. Each child’s total score on all 13 items is then used to determine
if the child is (a) not dysgraphic (score 0–21), (b) ambiguous (score 22–28), or (c)
dysgraphic (score 29 or higher). The interrater agreement between pairs of raters
has been reported to vary between r=0.71 and 0.89.
Procedure
Approval for this study was obtained from the Ethical Committee at the University
Hospital Ghent, Belgium. Data were collected during the course of three separate
research projects involving six nal year physical therapy students. The students
underwent training with regard to proper administration and scoring of the SOS.
They received an instruction session of 3 hr, followed by a training session in which
ve copies were scored and discussed. In the revised version of the SOS manual, the
training copies will be included. The SOS was administered in Dutch, to children in
a group setting.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

6Van Waelvelde et al.
Within the several research projects, the students were successful in recruiting
different groups of children to participate. As a result, the number of subjects for
test–retest, inter-, and intrarater reliability is different. Six testers scored 289 copies
twice leaving at least two weeks between both evaluations to investigate intrarater
reliability. Four pairs of testers scored 267 copies twice, blind to each other’s re-
sults, to investigate interrater reliability. One hundred ninety-nine children were
asked, two weeks after their rst test, to copy the text a second time to investigate
test–retest reliability. Six testers also scored the BHK on the written text used to
score the SOS for 73 children to investigate convergent validity between both tests.
Data Analysis
Intraclass Correlation Coefcient (ICC) for single measures in a two-way mixed
effects model was calculated to evaluate the intrarater, interrater, and test–retest
reliability of the total SOS score and writing speed. ICC data range from 0 (no
reliability) to 1 (perfect reliability) and were interpreted using the following crite-
ria: 0.00–0.49 poor, 0.50–0.74 moderate, and 0.75–1.00 excellent (McGraw & Wong,
1996). For each ICC obtained, the 95% condence interval (CI) was calculated to
provide a range of values that is likely to cover the true population value.
Kappa statistics for multiple ratings per subject were used to evaluate the in-
trarater, interrater, and test–retest agreement of the item scores varying between
0, 1, and 2. This statistical method to measure agreement between different mea-
surements takes into account chance agreement. The range for kappa is −1to+1
with the following categories: −1—perfect disagreement, 0—chance agreement,
0–0.2—poor agreement, 0.21–0.4—fair agreement, 0.41–0.60—moderate agree-
ment, 0.61–0.80—good agreement, and 0.81–1—very good agreement (Altman,
1991).
Pearson correlation coefcients were used to evaluate congruent validity be-
tween the SOS score and the BHK. The SOS scores and writing speed were an-
alyzed using a multivariate general linear model (GLM) to evaluate the effect of
type of education, gender, and age group. Because the variance of the SOS score
was not equal between the different age groups, a weighted least squares estima-
tion was used to control for this in the GLM. Pearson correlation coefcients were
computed between age and SOS score and writing speed.
RESULTS
Description of the Sample
A total of 862 subjects between 7 and 12 years of age took part in this study. They
were classied by age but the 11- and 12-year-old children were combined into one
group. The subjects attending regular mainstream schools were 65 7-year-old, 185
8-year-old, 122 9-year-old, 110 10-year-old, and 121 11–12-year-old children; 302 of
them were males and 301 females. The subjects attending special education schools
were 17 7-year-old, 54 8-year-old, 88 9-year-old, 55 11-year-old, and 45 11–12-year-
old children; 153 of them were males and 106 females. Results of the SOS, corre-
sponding to age, gender, and type of education are reported in Table 1.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

TAB LE 1 . Mean (Standard Deviation) of SOS Score and Writing Speed for the Different Groups of Children
SOS ScoreaWriting Speedb
Regular Schools Special Education Regular Schools Special Education
Age All Children Boys Girls All Children Boys Girls All Children Boys Girls All Children Boys Girls
7 years 3.4(2.0) 3.7(2.0) 3.1(1.9) 6.1(2.6) 6.5(2.1) 5.6(3.3) 136 (35.8) 134 (31.4) 138 (40.0) 80 (24.5) 75 (17.6) 88 (31.9)
8 years 3.1(1.8) 3.4(1.8) 2.8(1.8) 4.2(2.2) 4.9(2.2) 3.3(1.8) 158 (41.4) 152 (45.6) 163 (36.7) 117 (35.2) 106 (32.0) 133 (33.8)
9 years 2.8(2.0) 3.1(2.1) 2.3(1.7) 3.2(1.8) 3.7(1.8) 2.3(1.4) 176 (46.1) 165 (44.4) 191 (44.6) 146 (46.9) 137 (42.3) 159 (51.0)
10 years 2.3(1.6) 2.6(1.8) 1.9(1.3) 2.8(1.4) 2.9(1.4) 2.6(1.4) 224 (56.3) 225 (56.7) 222 (56.3) 167 (46.9) 160 (40.9) 178 (54.0)
11–12 years 2.1(1.5) 2.5(1.7) 1.8(1.2) 2.6(1.4) 2.7(1.6) 2.4(1.1) 260 (51.0) 251 (39.6) 266 (58.0) 199 (50.0) 205 (47.3) 192 (53.9)
Tota l 2.7(1.8) 3.0(1.9) 2.4(1.7) 3.4(2.0) 3.8(2.0) 2.8(1.8) 192 (63.4) 185 (61.7) 198 (64.5) 149 (54.4) 143 (53.6) 159 (54.6)
aA high score corresponds to a poor handwriting quality.
bWriting speed is the number of letters produced in 5 min.
7
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

8Van Waelvelde et al.
Intrarater Reliability
Two hundred sixty-seven children, 178 from mainstream schools and 81 from spe-
cial education settings, from the different age groups were randomly selected. The
written text from each of these children was scored a second time by the same rater
at least two weeks later. Results are reported in Table 2. SOS score and writing
speed (ICC coefcients) showed excellent intrarater reliability. Item scores (Kappa
coefcients) showed good to very good intrarater reliability.
Interrater Reliability
Two hundred eighty-nine children, 186 from mainstream schools and 81 from spe-
cial education, from the different age groups, were randomly selected. From these
children, the written text was scored a second time by another rater. Results are
reported in Table 2. SOS score and writing speed (ICC coefcients) showed excel-
lent interrater reliability, although the total SOS score extended into the moderate
reliability range. Item scores (Kappa coefcients) showed fair to good interrater
reliability.
Test–Retest Reliability
One hundred ninety-nine children, 131 from mainstream schools and 68 from spe-
cial education, from the different age groups, were randomly selected. These chil-
dren performed the test a second time two weeks later. Results are reported in
Table 2. Test–retest reliability of SOS score and writing speed was moderate, with
ICC’s of 0.69 and 0.66, respectively. Test–retest reliability at item level was fair to
moderate with Kappa coefcients between 0.26 and 0.41.
TABLE 2. Kappa Coefficients (for Items 1–6) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (with
Confidence Intervals of 95%) for Total SOS Score and Writing Speed, for Intrarater,
Interrater and Test-Retest Reliability
Intrarater Reliability Interrater Reliability Test–retest Reliability
Item 1 0.70 0.51 0.41
Item 2 0.70 0.50 0.40
Item 3 0.84 0.77 0.60
Item 4 0.61 0.39 0.35
Item 5 0.78 0.64 0.30
Item 6 0.66 0.53 0.26
SOS score 0.88 (0.85–0.90) 0.77 (0.73–0.82) 0.69 (0.61–0.76)
Writing speed 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (0.99–1.00) 0.66 (0.57–0.73)
All coefficients were significant, p<.001.
Convergent Validity Between SOS and BHK
The written text of seventy-three children (29 males, 44 females) between 7 and 11
years of age (mean age 9.7 years, SD =0.9) from two special schools was used to
also score the BHK. The Pearson correlation coefcient between total BHK and
SOS was 0.70 (p<.001).
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

Screening Handwriting Impairment 9
FIGURE 3. Box plots of the SOS score by age group and type of education.
Discriminant Validity
Signicant differences in total SOS score (handwriting quality) were found between
children from mainstream schools and children from special education schools (F
(1, 861) =36.5, p<.001, η2=0.041); between males and females (F(1, 861) =28.4,
p<.001, η2=0.033); and between children from the different age groups (F(4, 858)
=22.5, p<.001, η2=0.096). The interaction between type of education and gender
was not signicant (F(1, 861) =0.6, p=0.434, η2=0.001), nor was the interaction
between gender and age group (F(4, 858) =0.8, p=0.530, η2=0.004). However,
the interaction between age group and type of education was signicant (F(4, 858)
=3.9, p=0.004, η2=0.018). The box plot of the SOS scores by age group and type
of education illustrates this nding (Figure 3). Children from special schools make
more progress in handwriting quality between the ages of 7 and 12 years. Between
age and SOS score, a correlation coefcient of 0.29 was calculated, with a coefcient
of 0.27 for the typically developing children and 0.39 for the children from special
schools (coefcients were signicant at the 0.01 level).
Signicant differences were found in writing speed between children from main-
stream schools and children from special schools (F(1, 861) =152.6, p<.001, η2
=0.153); between males and females (F(1, 861) =10.3, p=.001, η2=0.012); and
between children from the different age groups (F(4, 858) =113.0, p<.001, η2=
0.348). The interaction between type of education and gender was not signicant
(F(4, 861) =0.2, p=.698, η2<0.001), nor was the interaction between gender and
age group (F=(4, 858) 1.4, p=.234, η2=0.007). Again, the interaction between
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

10 Van Waelvelde et al.
FIGURE 4. Box plots of writing speed by age group and type of education.
age group and type of education did reach signicance (F(4, 858) =3.2, p=.013,
η2=0.015). The box plot of writing speed by age group and type of education il-
lustrates this nding (Figure 4). Children from special schools make less progress
in handwriting speed between the ages of 7 and 12 years. Between age and writing
speed, a correlation coefcient of 0.61 was calculated. For the typically developing
children, a coefcient of 0.67 was calculated between age and writing speed and for
the children from special school, a coefcient of 0.59 (all coefcients were signi-
cant at the 0.01 level).
DISCUSSION
Overall, the results of this study indicate that the SOS score is a reliable score. In-
trarater reliability is excellent. Interrater variability was also excellent, although the
lower end of condence interval extended into the moderate reliability range. Mod-
erate test–retest variability can reect the variance in the performance of a child on
different occasions. Writing speed can be measured in a very reliable way within and
between raters. However, test–retest reliability of the writing speed was also only
moderate, indicating that there was considerable variance in writing speed between
the two test time periods. We can conclude that the SOS is a tool that will reliably
measure handwriting performance in children. The reason for the good reliability
is likely related to the objective criteria used for scoring, to include a simple and
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

Screening Handwriting Impairment 11
well laid out scoring system and the provision of scoring examples in the training
manual.
The SOS aims to be a screening test to identify handwriting problems. A total
score serves this aim and individual item scores should be interpreted with caution.
At item level, inter- and intrarater reliability varies between moderate to good but
test–retest reliability of the items is only fair to moderate.
The BHK evaluates 13 items and takes 15–20 min to score a sample. Although
the SOS evaluates just six items and takes only 5 min to score, the test results
can be compared to the BHK results. A correlation of 0.70 between both tests is
a conrmation of congruent validity and this is consistent with the reported coef-
cient of 0.78 between the BHK and the Dysgraphia Scale (Ajuriaguerra et al., 1979;
Hamstra-Bletz & Bl ¨
ote, 1993).
The SOS evaluates the ability of the child to copy text from a sheet of paper
in a 5-min period. The short administration time makes the SOS very useful as a
screening tool. However, this 5-min duration of writing time is also a limitation. The
SOS does not evaluate the ability of the child to write legibly for longer periods.
Therefore, it is unknown if perhaps legibility would decrease in some children if
they were required to write for longer than 5 min. It is also known that writing
speed is variable depending on context, the instruction given, and whether the child
is copying, taking dictation, or free writing (Feder & Majnemer, 2007). However, it
would be difcult to develop a valid, reliable handwriting screening tool that would
cover every aspect of handwriting performance.
The SOS score allows for differentiation between typically developing children
and children with special education needs, thus conrming discriminant validity.
However, the effect size of the difference between typically developing children and
those from special schools on the SOS score is small, although somewhat greater
for writing speed. Children in special school settings have a higher risk for reading
disorders. Slow reading can possibly affect writing speed.
In accordance with the literature (Berninger & Fuller, 1992; Berninger et al.,
2008; Ziviani & Watson-Will, 1998), males performed signicantly worse than fe-
males at all ages, in the quality of their handwriting and writing speed. This sug-
gests that separate normative data should be available for males and females.
Boys may need more time for maturation and for the acquisition of ne mo-
tor skills (Lung et al., 2011; Richter & Janson, 2007), thus gender-specic nor-
mative data can prevent overdiagnosis and treatment of dysgraphia in boys.
Since handwriting produced by boys remains less readable and slower through-
out their school career (Berninger & Fuller, 1992; Berninger et al., 2008; Ziviani
& Watson-Will, 1998), it is recommended that handwriting requirements should
be adapted for boys. Alternatively, boys should be given more training time dur-
ing school hours to improve their handwriting skills. If their handwriting does
not improve in the presence of these adaptations, then intervention should be
considered.
The SOS score decreases between the ages of 7 and 11 years, indicating improved
handwriting quality as children grow older. The variance of the writing abilities
is not similar at all ages, as depicted in Figure 3. Younger children show larger
variances although some 7-year-old children are already able to reach the maxi-
mum SOS score (a zero score). This validates existing literature on the longitudinal
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

12 Van Waelvelde et al.
development of handwriting performance (Hamstra-Bletz & Bl ¨
ote, 1993; Karlsdot-
tir & Stefansson, 2002; Overvelde & Hulstijn, 2011).
A signicant interaction is shown between age group and type of education in the
model comparing typically developing children with those in special school settings.
This demonstrates that the course of handwriting development is different for the
children with learning challenges. Our study ndings suggest that the special needs
children in our sample were more delayed at younger ages (Figure 3).
Writing speed is more closely related to the age of the child within primary school
as can be deduced from the higher correlation coefcients between age and writing
speed, compared to the relationship between age and SOS score.
Limitations
The SOS text to copy is in Dutch. A text in the native language of the child, with the
appropriate level of difculty, is necessary to make the test useful in other countries.
The SOS has been translated in German and English, and normative data collection
is currently ongoing. The same qualitative criteria can be used for other languages,
if these languages use the Latin alphabet and a cursive uent writing style. The
SOS may be used as an alternative to the CHES-M for screening children quickly
for handwriting problems. However, the brevity of the SOS limits more in-depth
screening of handwriting difculties.
The reliability of the SOS was investigated by comparing the scoring results of
trained physiotherapy students. Comparing the results of teachers evaluating copies
of children with poor handwriting could be a next step to support the interrater
reliability of the SOS. The convergent validity could only be investigated with the
BHK because no other Dutch handwriting tests were available. However, the SOS
can be considered as an adapted short version of the BHK. The English translation
of the SOS will allow further investigation of convergent validity. Specicity and
sensitivity of the SOS to identify children with handwriting problems should also
be investigated. Furthermore, we recommend that performance of children over
extended periods is evaluated using longitudinal research methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Although continuing research is necessary to investigate the reliability and validity
of the SOS, the results of this study are promising. Inter- and intrarater reliability
were excellent and test–retest reliability was moderate. Convergent validity with
the BHK was conrmed. The SOS test discriminated between typically develop-
ing children and children in special school settings, between males and females,
and between different age groups. The SOS can be used for early identication of
handwriting difculties. This tool may assist in achieving the goal of timely inter-
vention for children and thus prevent secondary problems often associated with
handwriting difculties such as academic underachievement and low self-esteem.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Helena Biebauw, Kim Hendrickx, Stephanie La-
gae, Stefanie Piessens, Kelly Van der Cruysen, and Charlotte Van Moorthegem for
collecting data and Ellen De Schepper for statistical counseling.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

Screening Handwriting Impairment 13
Declaration of interest:The authors report no conicts of interest. The authors
alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Hilde Van Waelvelde is pediatric physical therapist and professor at Artevelde Uni-
versity College and Ghent University, Belgium. Tinneke Hellinckx is physical ther-
apist and doctoral student at Ghent University, Belgium. Wim Peersman is master
in social sciences, statistician, and doctoral student at Artevelde University Col-
lege and Ghent University, Belgium. Bouwien C.M. Smits Engelsman is pediatric
physical therapist and professor at KULeuven, Belgium.
REFERENCES
Ajuriaguerra, J. (de), Auzias, M., Coumes, F., Denner, A., Lavondes-Monod, V., Perron, R., et al.
(1979). L’ ´
ecriture de l’enfant, Tome 1, L’´
evolution de l’´
ecriture et ses difcult´
es. Neuchˆ
atel et
Paris: Delachaux et Niestl´
e.
Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research (p. 404). London: Chapman & Hall.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (20 00). The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorder (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Berninger, V. W., & Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal and composi-
tional uency: Implications for assessing writing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal
of School Psychology,30, 363–382.
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (20 08). Gender differ-
ences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School Psychology,46, 151–172.
Bosga-Stork, I., Overvelde, A., van Bommel, I., Nijhuis-Van der Sanden, R., van Cauteren, M.,
Halfwerk, B., et al. (2009). Inventarisatie van verwijzingspatroon, onderzoek en behandel-
ing van kinderen met schrijfproblemen. Een digitale enquˆ
ete. [Inventarisation of the referral
pattern, assessment and treatment of children with handwriting problems A digital survey.]
Nederlands tijdschrift voor Kinderfysiotherapie,21,14–18.
Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2003). Children’s handwriting evaluation tools and their psycho-
metric properties. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,23, 65–84.
Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (20 07). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,49, 312–317.
Flapper, B. C., Houwen, S., & Schoemaker, M. M. (2006). Fine motor skills and effects of
methylphenidate in children with attention-decit-hyperactivity disorder and developmental
coordination disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,48, 165–169.
Fuentes, C. T., Mostofsky, S. H., & Bastian, A. J. (2009). Children with autism show specic hand-
writing impairments. Neurology,10, 1532–1537.
Geuze, R. H., Jongmans, M. J., Schoemaker, M. M., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. (200 1). Clinical
and research diagnostic criteria for developmental coordination disorder: A review and dis-
cussion. Human Movement Science,20, 7–47.
Hamstra-Bletz, E., de Bie, J., & den Brinker, B. P. L. M. (1987). Beknopte beoordelingsmethode
voor kinderhandschriften: Experimentele versie [The concise assessment scale for children’s
handwriting: Experimental version]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hamstra-Bletz, E., & Bl ¨
ote, A. W. (1993). A longitudinal study on dysgraphic handwriting in
primary school. Journal of Learning Disabilities,26, 689–699.
Jongmans, M. J., Linthorst-Bakker, E., Westenberg, Y., & Smits-Engelsman, B. C. (2003). Use
of a task-oriented self-instruction method to support children in primary school with poor
handwriting quality and speed. Human Movement Science,22, 549–566.
Karlsdottir, R., & Stefansson, T. (20 02). Problems in developing functional handwriting. Percep-
tual and Motor Skills,94, 623–662.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.

14 Van Waelvelde et al.
Kirby, A., Sugden, D., Beveridge, S., & Edwards, L. (2008). Dyslexia and developmental co-
ordination disorder in further and higher education—similarities and differences. Does the
“label” inuence the support given? Dyslexia,14, 197–213.
Laszlo, J. I., & Bairstow, P. J. (1984). Handwriting, difculties and possible solutions. School Psy-
chology International,5, 207–213.
Lung, F. W., Chiang, T. L., Lin, S. J., Feng, J. Y., Chen, P. F., et al. (2011). Gender differences
of children’s developmental trajectory from 6 to 60 months in the Taiwan Birth Cohort Pilot
Study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 100–106.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intra-class correlation co-
efcients. Psychological Methods,1, 30–46.
Overvelde, A., van Bommel, I., Bosga-Stork, I., Van Cauteren, M., Halfwerk, B., Smits-
Engelsman, B. M., et al. (2011). Evidence statements: Motorische schrijfproblemen bij
kinderen. [Evidence statements: motor writing problems in children.] Retrieved February 10,
2012, from https://www.kngfrichtlijnen.nl/index.php?NODE=2004&richtlijn=29&versie=71
Overvelde, A., & Hulstijn, W. (2011). Handwriting development in grade 2 and grade 3 primary
school children with normal, at risk, or dysgraphic characteristics. Research in Developmental
Disabilities,32, 540–548.
Phelps, J., & Stempel, L. (1987). Children’s handwriting evaluation scale for manuscript writing.
Dallas, TX: Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Crippled Children.
Ratzon, N. Z., Efraim, D., & Bar, T. O. (2007). A short-term graphomotor program for improving
writing readiness skills of rst-grade students. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,61,
399–405.
Reisman, J. E. (1991). Poor handwriting: Who is referred? American Journal of Occupational
Therapy,45, 849–852.
Reisman, J. E. (1993). Development and reliability of the research version of the Minnesota hand-
writing test. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,13, 41–55.
Richter, J., & Janson, H. (2007). A validation study of the Norwegian version of the ages and
stages questionnaires. Acta Paediatrica,96, 748–752.
Rosenblum, S., Weiss, S. P. L., & Parush, S. (2003). Product and process evaluation of handwriting
difculties: A review. Educational Psychology Review,15, 41–81.
Rosenblum, S., & Livneh-Zirinski, M. (2008). Handwriting process and product characteristics
of children diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder. Human Movement Science,
27, 200–214.
Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M., Schoemaker, M. M., Van Galen, G. P., & Michels, C. G. J. (1996).
Physiotherapy for children’s writing problems: An evaluation study. In M. L. Simner, C. G.
Leedham, & A. J. W. M. Thomassen (Eds.), Handwriting and drawing research: Basic and
applied issues (pp. 227–240). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Smits-Engelsman, B., Stevens, M., Vrenken, I., & Van Hagen, A. (2005). Systematische Op-
sporing Schrijfproblemen (SOS): een hulpmiddel voor leerkrachten bij het signaleren van
motorische schrijfproblemen van leerlingen in het Basis en Speciaal Onderwijs. [Systematic
screening of handwriting problems (SOS): An instrument for teachers for screening of hand-
writing problem of children in primary school and special education] Kinderfysiotherapie,De-
cembre, 16–20.
Ziviani, J., & Watson-Will, A. (1998). Writing speed and legibility of 7–14-year old school students
using modern cursive script. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal,45, 59–64.
Phys Occup Ther Pediatr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Gent on 04/25/12
For personal use only.