View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effects of Script and Orthographic Complexity on the Handwriting and Spelling Performance of Children with Dyslexia

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effects of Script and Orthographic Complexity on the Handwriting and Spelling Performance of Children with Dyslexia
Language: English
Authors: Arfé, Barbara, Corato, Francesca, Pizzocaro, Eleonora, Merella, Anne
Source: Journal of Learning Disabilities. Mar-Apr 2020 53(2):96-108.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Handwriting, Spelling, Dyslexia, Learning Problems, Age Differences, Duplication, Psychomotor Skills, Visual Perception, Performance, Foreign Countries, Children
Geographic Terms: Italy
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception
DOI: 10.1177/0022219419892845
ISSN: 0022-2194
Abstract: Handwriting and spelling problems are often associated in dyslexia. However, the nature of their association is still unclear, and most of the existing research in this area is on deep orthographies (mainly English). The extent to which findings are applicable across languages is uncertain. This article examines the effects of script (manuscript/cursive) and orthographic complexity (complex/simple spellings) on the word dictation and word-copying performance of a group of 24 Italian children with dyslexia and handwriting difficulties (DH group, aged 8-10). Their performance was compared with that of a chronologically age-matched group (CA) and a group of younger children matched to the DH group for their handwriting skills (HA: handwriting age group). Children performed two classical handwriting tasks: the alphabet task and a sentence-copy task, and dictation and copy tasks of orthographically complex words and orthographically simple words. Copying was performed in manuscript and cursive. The results show that although the DH group shows a significant deficit in graphomotor processes, orthographic complexity more than the visual-motor characteristics of the task (i.e., script) affects their performance in handwriting. An advantage for cursive script in DH children, but not in the other two groups, emerges from the study.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1242809
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFeX0gkNfCRERQawBZkRGOHAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOHhXQEXc3C03Q6K5QIBEICBmsQzbJzQ8Ddp8_MzrNCwIrw_k78-SzLgBhb7np0NYImN41AKD5sMcDCuZReH-vy3GxApqXp71yw0y-cEPICrBWMN4buDiEc0oaWxt-2c62aoWjzgeooZLVwFfyljDRzaQskTBEAjp_NadCUdJpbuO-CKj8Wwh8ONqJzPMT2BjfT0ispHJJ-T1uZu3W9HsMRA-E-n4qZbiuHwqjY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0141602326;led01mar.20;2020Feb10.03:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0141602326-1">The Effects of Script and Orthographic Complexity on the Handwriting and Spelling Performance of Children With Dyslexia </title> <p>Handwriting and spelling problems are often associated in dyslexia. However, the nature of their association is still unclear, and most of the existing research in this area is on deep orthographies (mainly English). The extent to which findings are applicable across languages is uncertain. This article examines the effects of script (manuscript/cursive) and orthographic complexity (complex/simple spellings) on the word dictation and word-copying performance of a group of 24 Italian children with dyslexia and handwriting difficulties (DH group, aged 8–10). Their performance was compared with that of a chronologically age–matched group (CA) and a group of younger children matched to the DH group for their handwriting skills (HA: handwriting age group). Children performed two classical handwriting tasks: the alphabet task and a sentence-copy task, and dictation and copy tasks of orthographically complex words and orthographically simple words. Copying was performed in manuscript and cursive. The results show that although the DH group shows a significant deficit in graphomotor processes, orthographic complexity more than the visual-motor characteristics of the task (i.e., script) affects their performance in handwriting. An advantage for cursive script in DH children, but not in the other two groups, emerges from the study.</p> <p>Keywords: dyslexia; handwriting problems; script; orthographic complexity; copying; spelling</p> <p>In total, 30% to 50% of children with dyslexia show significant handwriting difficulties ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref2">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]). These difficulties persist in college-age students and are often associated with spelling problems ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]). Spelling is indeed typically impaired in children and adults with dyslexia (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]) and often represents an area of residual deficit in adults who have compensated for their reading difficulties ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]). However, the nature of the association between spelling and handwriting problems in students with dyslexia is still unclear, and most of our knowledge on this topic is based on studies conducted on English orthography. In the present study, the interaction between spelling and handwriting is explored in children with dyslexia who show spelling and handwriting problems in a shallow orthography (Italian).</p> <p>Problems with handwriting in dyslexia might be the effect of independent neuromotor deficits associated with the reading deficit ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]) or a manifestation of the child's spelling difficulties ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]). Motor impairments are frequently associated with developmental dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]), and poor fine motor control (i.e., speed and accuracy of motor performance) or difficulties to comply with the rhythmic organization of graphomotor execution are related to the handwriting performance of children with dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]). Yet, some data suggest that the dysfluencies in handwriting of children with dyslexia reflect hesitations in spelling, rather than in fine motor control ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref19">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref20">36</reflink>]). To complicate the picture further, the motor performance in handwriting of children who have motor difficulties (i.e., developmental coordination disorders) appears similar to that of poor spellers with dyslexia: Like these children, they pause more than controls within words ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref23">35</reflink>]). Therefore, determining the exact nature of the handwriting problems associated with dyslexia is often difficult. The research on the relationship between handwriting and spelling is also limited. Several studies have shown that spelling skills affect graphomotor processes during transcription (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>]). However, the reciprocal influence of handwriting on spelling has received less attention (but see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted above, our current understanding of handwriting problems in dyslexia is further limited by the fact that most of the existing research in this area is in languages with deep orthographic systems (like English; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]). Disentangling the contribution of spelling and graphomotor processes to the handwriting of children with dyslexia can be difficult in these languages, as the complexity of spelling also significantly constrains the writer's graphomotor execution ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref35">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>]). In more shallow systems, in which spelling is simpler, like Italian, the effects of spelling skills on handwriting can be less significant and the influence of the child's graphomotor skills can thus be more evident.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-2">The Effects of Orthographic Complexity and Script</hd> <p>Two conditions that are known to affect spelling and handwriting are orthographic complexity ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]) and transcription in different scripts ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>]). In the present study, we examined how variation in orthographic complexity (spelling difficulty) and script (graphomotor patterns) affected the spelling and handwriting of Italian children with dyslexia. Orthographic complexity refers to the difficulty with which writers spell words. In an alphabetic script, this often depends on the degree to which written words deviate from simple one-to-one phoneme–grapheme correspondences.</p> <p>In shallow orthographies, like Italian, orthographic complexity is generally low, as correspondences between phonemes and graphemes are typically one-to-one ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]). Yet, even in Italian, some words are more difficult to spell than others. An example are words with context-dependent graphemes, like the letter "c," which corresponds to different phonemes (/t∫/ in <emph>cena</emph>/dinner and /k/ in <emph>casa</emph>/house). Consonant sounds like /k/ and /g/ are also transcribed in different ways according to the accompanying vowel (e.g., /k/ is transcribed <emph>c</emph>- in <emph>casa</emph>, but <emph>ch</emph>- in <emph>chiavi</emph>/keys). The spelling of these words requires the development of syllabic transcription (i.e., the retrieval and transcription of orthographic groups such as -ca-/ka/, -chi-/ki/; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref41">9</reflink>]) and represents a challenge both for typically developing children and children with dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Transcription is also influenced by the physical characteristics of letters, or script ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]). Although, in typically developing writers, the differences in legibility and speed of different scripts, like cursive and manuscript, are no longer significant after Grade 4 ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref44">15</reflink>]), it is likely that script affects the performance of beginner writers as well as that of children with handwriting problems. Cursive, being joined, requires greater motor control than manuscript script and thus can be more difficult for younger writers and children with graphomotor difficulties, who have not yet developed sufficient command of the motor programs necessary for handwriting ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]). However, cursive writing, being joined, may facilitate the child's processing of orthographic groups (e.g., bi- and tri-grams or whole words), thus supporting syllabic transcription and the use of lexical spelling strategies that are more efficient for orthographically complex words.</p> <p>The present study explores the effects of script (manuscript/cursive) and orthographic complexity (complex/simple spellings) on the handwriting and spelling performance of Italian children with dyslexia and co-occurring handwriting problems. To our knowledge, none of the studies that have investigated the association between spelling and handwriting problems in children with dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref46">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref50">34</reflink>]) have examined both the effects of orthographic complexity and script on their writing performance. Exploring these effects can clarify the nature of their writing problems and inform instructional decisions. In particular, given the prevalence of fine motor difficulties in dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]), it is important to examine the effects of script on the handwriting of children with dyslexia.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-3">The Study</hd> <p>The main aim of the present study was to understand whether problems in spelling and handwriting interact in the writing of Italian children with dyslexia. To answer this research question, children's performance was examined across three tasks: sentence copying, word dictation, and word copying. First, we explored how script (or variations in the motor pattern of handwriting) affected the children's handwriting fluency and legibility in a traditional handwriting task: sentence copying. Second, we examined the effects of orthographic complexity on children's spelling and handwriting (legibility) in word dictation. Finally, we examined how variations in script and orthographic complexity interacted in affecting children's spelling and handwriting (fluency and legibility) in word-copying tasks. The performance of the children with dyslexia was compared with that of typically developing children matched on chronological age (CA controls) and graphomotor abilities (handwriting age, HA controls), to determine whether their handwriting was delayed for their age, and their handwriting problems were due to immature graphomotor skills—like in the HA controls—or whether they had a different origin.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0141602326-5">Participants</hd> <p>Table 1 summarizes the participants' characteristics. Twenty-four 8- to 10-year-old Italian native speakers with dyslexia or spelling problems associated with handwriting difficulties (DH = dyslexia and handwriting difficulties) were recruited through a Centre for Learning Disabilities. Their grade level ranged from third to fifth.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Participants' Characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Measures</th><th align="center">DH(<italic>n</italic> = 24)<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center">HA(<italic>n</italic> = 25)<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center">CA(<italic>n</italic> = 28)<italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">Post hoc</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Word reading + spelling problems (<italic>n</italic>)</td><td>19</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Spelling problems only (<italic>n</italic>)</td><td>5</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>9.5 (0.76)</td><td>7.7 (0.62)</td><td>9.5 (0.85)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>IQ total</td><td>98.5 (15)</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Alphabet automaticity</td></tr><tr><td> Letters in 15 s</td><td>5.68 (3.17)</td><td>6.25 (2.02)</td><td>11.92 (3.18)</td><td>.001</td><td>CA > DH = HA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Sentence-copy cursive</td></tr><tr><td> Letters in 15 s</td><td>12.71 (6.24)</td><td>13.24 (6.53)</td><td>24.03 (6.21)</td><td>.001</td><td>CA > DH = HA</td></tr><tr><td> Overall speed (s)</td><td>95 (41.1)</td><td>108 (39.6)</td><td>49.8 (18.7)</td><td>.001</td><td>CA < DH = HA</td></tr><tr><td> Legibility</td><td>59.70 (4.47)</td><td>59.20 (7.72)</td><td>61.50 (1.23)</td><td>.231</td><td>CA = DH = HA</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> DH = dyslexia and handwriting difficulties group; HA = handwriting age–matched controls; CA = chronologically age–matched controls.</p> <p>This group comprised mostly boys (92%, 22 boys), reflecting the greater incidence of handwriting problems in the male population ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]). All children in the DH group met the following inclusion criteria: nonverbal IQ at or above 80, diagnosis of dyslexia and spelling problems (i.e., performance in spelling at or below 5th percentile or 2 <emph>SD</emph> below norms for their age), no reported attentional problems, and reported difficulties with handwriting. At clinical assessment ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref53">37</reflink>]), 14 (58%) children performed more than 1.5 <emph>SD</emph> below norms in handwriting for their grade level (DH+); 10 showed performances between 1 and 1.5 <emph>SD</emph> (DH–) from norms. A total of 19 children met the criteria for a diagnosis of dyslexia (i.e., word reading and decoding skills at or below the 5th percentile or 2 <emph>SD</emph> below norms). Five had compensated for their initial reading difficulties, but presented persistent spelling problems, a situation that is not uncommon among children with dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Two control groups were recruited from mainstream schools. The first included 28 school-age and chronological age–matched (CA) children (12 boys). The second group included 25 participants (11 boys) matched to the DH group on handwriting skills (HA group), and attending the second (22 children) or the beginning of third (three children) year of primary school. All children were Italian native speakers and did not present diagnosed or suspected learning disabilities. The HA group and the DH group were matched on four handwriting measures: alphabet writing 15 s automaticity, sentence-copy 15 s fluency (cursive), sentence-copy legibility (cursive), sentence-copy overall speed (cursive) (see the "Procedure" section for a description of the measures).</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-6">Procedure</hd> <p>Children were assessed in individual sessions at school or in clinical settings. The following skills were assessed:</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-7">Visual-motor coordination skills</hd> <p>Five subtests of the Developmental Test of Visual Perception (<emph>Test di percezione visiva</emph>, TPV; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>]) were administered to the DH group only to assess their visual perception (Figure-Ground, Visual Closure, Form Constancy) and visuo-motor integration (Eye-Hand Coordination, Copy) skills. Internal consistency for the subtests ranges from.83 to.91. Test–retest reliability ranges from.82 to.85.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-8">Handwriting skills</hd> <p>The standardized tasks used for the clinical assessment of handwriting in the DH group (writing numbers in letters in 60 s, writing the word <emph>uno</emph> [one] repeatedly for 60 s, and writing the letters sequence -<emph>le</emph>- repeatedly for 60 s; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref56">37</reflink>]) were different from those typically used in handwriting research ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref57">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref58">6</reflink>]). We thus also used two traditional handwriting tasks in this study: the alphabet task and sentence-copy task ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref59">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>The <emph>alphabet task</emph> assesses automatic access and reproduction of alphabet letters from memory ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref60">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref62">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref63">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref65">38</reflink>]). The child is asked to write the alphabet in order in lowercase manuscript letters as quickly and accurately as possible. The number of legible alphabet letters produced in the right order in 15 s is scored. Interrater reliability reported in previous studies is.97 ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Sentence copy</emph> assesses the speed and quality (legibility) of text copying ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref67">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref68">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref69">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref70">30</reflink>]). Children were asked to copy the Italian sentence, "<emph>L'elefante vide benissimo quel topo che rubava qualche pezzo di formaggio</emph>" (transl.: "The elephant clearly saw that mouse, which was stealing some pieces of cheese") as accurately and quickly as they could, in cursive and in manuscript letters (script order was counterbalanced between participants; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>]). In Italy, there is lack of detailed national programs for handwriting and spelling instruction. However, typically, manuscript is introduced at the beginning of Grade 1. Cursive can be also introduced from Grade 1, although later in the school year (typically in the second semester) or, more frequently, from Grade 2. Thus, even the younger writers in this study (second graders) could perform the task in cursive. A time limit of 180 s was given to allow even the poorest handwriters to write in their best handwriting. Time to complete the task was recorded. Before performing the task, children were asked to read the sentence aloud. For each condition (manuscript and cursive), three scores were computed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The first type of score was <emph>fluency</emph>. Fluency was computed as the number of legible graphemes correctly produced within the first 15 s;</item> <p></p> <item> The second score was <emph>legibility</emph>. It corresponded to the total number of legible graphemes produced within the time limit (180 s). The legibility of the graphemes reflects motor control and the quality of fine motor programs. Interrater reliability, computed by Pearson's correlations, was.94;</item> <p></p> <item> The third score was <emph>overall speed</emph>, corresponding to the number of seconds necessary to copy the sentence.</item> </ulist> <p>The interaction between spelling and handwriting was examined by two experimental tasks: word dictation and copying. Task order (dictation and copying) was counterbalanced between participants.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-9">Experimental tasks</hd> <p>In addition to the visual-motor coordination and handwriting tasks presented above, all children performed the following two experimental tasks:</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-10">Word dictation</hd> <p>Two lists of 10 trisyllabic words were written under dictation. Children were free to use their preferred script to write. One list (complex) included orthographically complex words (i.e., words presenting syllabic transcription or context-dependent rules: <emph>agnello</emph>/lamb). The other list (simple) included words with simple orthographic structure (i.e., 1:1 phoneme–grapheme correspondences: <emph>abete</emph>/fir). The two lists included only concrete low-frequency nouns (range = 0–61) in the written lexicon of Italian children ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref72">26</reflink>]). Low-frequency words were chosen to ensure that they presented some spelling challenges for primary school children. The two word lists did not differ for word frequency, <emph>t</emph> = −.16, <emph>p</emph> =.87 (mean frequency complex list = 19.3, simple list = 20.8). However, bigram frequency was higher in the simple word list than in the complex word list, <emph>t</emph> = 2.63, <emph>p</emph> <.05. This was predictable, as one-to-one phoneme–grapheme correspondences are prevalent in Italian. The number of accurate spellings for each list was scored. For each word, legibility was also scored on a 5-point scale (from 1 = <emph>totally illegible</emph> to 5 = <emph>well written and clear</emph>). Interrater reliability, computed by Pearson's correlations, was.95.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-11">Word copying</hd> <p>The same two word lists were used in two copying tasks. Each list was copied in manuscript letters and in cursive letters, so that four lists were copied by all children (manuscript complex, manuscript simple; cursive complex, and cursive simple). List order was counterbalanced between participants. The children's performance was scored for (a) spelling accuracy, (b) handwriting fluency (seconds per letter), and (c) legibility (on a 5-point scale, interrater reliability was.97).</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-12">Results</hd> <p>At the clinical assessment, 14 of the children of the DH group performed below 1.5 <emph>SD</emph> on handwriting measures (DH+), 10 performed within 1.5 <emph>SD</emph> (DH–). We thus first checked whether the two groups differed in alphabet writing and text copying and in visual-motor coordination skills, assessed by the TPV.</p> <p>Statistical comparisons by <emph>t</emph> tests showed that the two groups did not differ significantly on age or on any of the handwriting measures assessed in the study (alphabet task automaticity, sentence-copy fluency, overall speed, and legibility in manuscript and cursive). Significant differences between the two handwriting groups (below and above 1.5 <emph>SD</emph>) emerged only for two visual perception subtests of the TPV: visual closure and form constancy (respectively, <emph>t</emph> = −3.84, <emph>p</emph> <.001 and <emph>t</emph> = −2.08, <emph>p</emph> =.05). The performance was better for the children performing worse at the standardized handwriting assessment (DH+). Because the two DH groups did not differ in handwriting fluency and legibility, the subsequent analyses were run considering DH– and DH+ children—a unitary group.</p> <p>Mixed within- and between-measures analyses (analyses of variance [ANOVAs]) were run to test the effects of group (between factor), script, and orthographic complexity (within factors) on children's handwriting and spelling and to explore the interaction between these factors. Effect sizes—partial eta squared—were computed by SPSS, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> = SS<subs>effect</subs> / SS<subs>effect</subs> + SS<subs>error</subs>. Gender was included as a covariate in all initial analyses and in the subsequent analyses where it showed to have an effect. In all cases, gender did not change the main effect of group or the interaction between group and script. The effect of gender was significant only for legibility (in the word-dictation task) and spelling accuracy (in the word-copying task): Girls produced more legible words and accurate spellings than boys.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-13">Effects of Script on Handwriting: Sentence Copying</hd> <p>The effects of script (within factor: manuscript/cursive) and group (between factor: CA, HA, DH) on sentence copying (legibility, 15 s fluency, and overall speed) were tested.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-14">Legibility</hd> <p>There was a significant effect of script, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>, 73) = 6.75, <emph>p</emph> =.01, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.09. Sentences copied in manuscript were more legible. Group and gender were not significant. The interaction between script and group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>, 73) = 3.94, <emph>p</emph> =.02, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.10. To explore the interaction, separate ANOVAs were run within each group. The analyses revealed a significant effect of script only for the HA children, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>, 23) = 4.64, <emph>p</emph> =.04, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.17; their writing was more legible in manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-15">Fluency (letters in 15 s)</hd> <p>The effect of group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>, 73) = 24.19, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.40. Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that children in the DH group were slower in copying than the CA (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and the HA controls (<emph>p</emph> =.01), and the HA participants were slower than the CA participants (<emph>p</emph> =.008). Inspection of Figure 1 shows that differences between the DH and HA groups were mainly due to the greater fluency of HA controls in manuscript. The effect of script approached significance, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>, 73) = 3.41, <emph>p</emph> =.07, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.05. Children were more fluent in copying in manuscript (see Figure 1). An interaction between group and script was found, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>, 73) = 9.99, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.21. Thus, separate ANOVAs were run within each group. Both the HA controls, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>, 24) = 11.77, <emph>p</emph> <.005, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.33, and CA controls, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>, 27) = 6.78, <emph>p</emph> =.01, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.20, were faster in manuscript. The effect of script also approached significance in the DH group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>, 23) = 3.94, <emph>p</emph> =.06, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.15. However, this group was faster in cursive (see Figure 1a).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Sentence copy: Effects of script on handwriting fluency: (a) 15 s and (b) overall speed. Note. HA = handwriting age–matched controls; DH = dyslexia and handwriting difficulties group; CA = chronological age–matched controls.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-16">Overall speed</hd> <p>The results showed a main effect of group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref82">2</reflink>, 73) = 35.83, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.49. The CA controls were faster in sentence copying than the HA group (<emph>p</emph> <.001), and the HA controls were faster than the DH group (<emph>p</emph> =.01). Script and group interacted, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref84">73</reflink>) = 16.31, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.31. Separate ANOVAs for the three groups revealed that the HA and CA controls were faster in manuscript, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>, 24) = 31.34, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.57, and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>, 27) = 9.98, <emph>p</emph> =.004, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.27; on the contrary, the group with dyslexia (DH) was faster in cursive, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>, 23) = 5.32, <emph>p</emph> =.03, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.19 (see Figure 1b).</p> <p>In sum, sentences were more legible in manuscript than in cursive, and the two control groups were faster in copying text in manuscript than in cursive. The children in the DH group were overall slower in copying than the CA and HA controls, and in contrast to the two control groups, they were more fluent when copying in cursive.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-17">Effects of Orthographic Complexity on Spelling and Handwriting Legibility: Word Dictation</hd> <p>The effects of spelling list (within factor: complex/simple spelling) and group (between factor: DH, HA, CA) on spelling accuracy and handwriting legibility were tested.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-18">Spelling accuracy</hd> <p>The ANOVA revealed a main effect of group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>, 73) = 18.40, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.33. Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that the DH group made more spelling errors than both control groups (CA, <emph>p</emph> <.001 and HA, <emph>p</emph> <.01). The HA group made more spelling errors than the CA group, and the difference approached significance (<emph>p</emph> =.06). A significant interaction between spelling list and group emerged, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>, 73) = 8.82, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.19. Separate ANOVAs for the three groups showed that only in the DH group, the effect of spelling list was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>, 23) = 12.19, <emph>p</emph> =.002, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.35. The simple list was spelt better.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-19">Legibility</hd> <p>Group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>, 72) = 7.18, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.16. CA controls produced more legible words than the HA controls (<emph>p</emph> =.006) and the DH group (<emph>p</emph> =.002), who did not differ from each other. In synthesis, orthographic complexity significantly affected spelling accuracy in the DH group but not legibility.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-20">Interaction Between Orthographic Complexity and Script (Effects on Spelling Accuracy, Handwri...</hd> <p>The effects of group (between factor: CA, HA, and DH groups), script (within factor: manuscript/cursive), and spelling list (within factor: complex/simple list) on spelling accuracy, handwriting fluency, and handwriting legibility were tested.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-21">Spelling accuracy</hd> <p>The ANOVA revealed a main effect of group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>, 73) = 26.73, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.42, and a significant interaction between group, spelling list, and script, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>, 73) = 4.16, <emph>p</emph> =.02, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.10. Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that CA controls performed better than both the HA matched controls, <emph>p</emph> <.001, and the DH group, <emph>p</emph> <.001, who did not differ significantly from each other. The interaction was explored by comparing the effects of script and group for each spelling list (complex and simple) separately, and the effects of spelling list and group for each script condition (cursive/manuscript) separately.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-22">Effects of script and group for the complex and simple spelling list</hd> <p>For the <emph>complex spelling list</emph>, only group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>, 73) = 17.71, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.33: CA controls made more accurate spellings than both the HA controls (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and children in the DH group (<emph>p</emph> <.001). These two groups did not differ from each other. For the <emph>simple spelling list</emph>, a main effect of group emerged, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>, 73) = 25.85, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.42. CA controls performed significantly better than the DH group (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and the HA group (<emph>p</emph> <.001), who did not differ from each other. The interaction between script and group approached significance, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>, 73) = 2.82, <emph>p</emph> =.07, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.07. When script effects were explored within each group, no significant effects of script emerged, although HA controls showed relatively better command of spelling in manuscript (see Figure 2b). In synthesis, no effects of script on spelling accuracy were found.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Word copying: Effects of script on spelling accuracy for the (a) complex and (b) simple spelling list. Note. HA = handwriting age–matched controls; DH = dyslexia and handwriting difficulties group; CA = chronological age–matched controls.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-23">Effects of spelling list and group for cursive and manuscript</hd> <p>In <emph>cursive copying</emph>, only group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>, 73) = 14.76, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.29. CA controls were more accurate than HA controls (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and children in the DH group (<emph>p</emph> <.001). No significant differences were found between these two latter groups. Also in <emph>manuscript copying</emph>, group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>, 73) = 21.21, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.37. Again, the CA controls were more able to spell both word lists than the HA (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and DH (<emph>p</emph> <.001) groups, and these two groups did not differ from each other. In synthesis, no effects of spelling list emerged, and the CA controls were more accurate than the other two groups (HA and DH) in spelling, both simple and complex words.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-24">Handwriting fluency</hd> <p>Spelling list and script were significant, respectively, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>, 73) = 20.42, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.22, and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>, 73) = 10.98, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.13. Children were faster in copying the simple spelling list than the complex spelling list and were faster in manuscript than in cursive (see Figure 3). A main effect of group also emerged, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>, 73) = 17.79, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.33. The CA controls were faster at copying than the other two groups (HA controls, <emph>p</emph> <.001, and DH group, <emph>p</emph> <.001), who did not differ from each other. The interaction between script and group, the interaction between list and group, and the interaction of spelling list by script were significant: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref102">2</reflink>, 73) = 13.08, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.26; <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref103">2</reflink>, 73) = 4.51, <emph>p</emph> =.01, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.11; and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref104">1</reflink>, 73) = 4.31, <emph>p</emph> =.04, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.06. The three-way interaction between spelling, script, and group was also significant: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref105">2</reflink>, 73) = 5.30, <emph>p</emph> =.007, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.13. Thus, the effects of script (manuscript/cursive) and group were investigated separately for each spelling list, and the list (complex/simple) and group effects were explored for each script.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Word copying: Effects of script on handwriting fluency for (a) complex and (b) simple word list. Note. HA = handwriting age–matched controls; DH = dyslexia and handwriting difficulties group; CA = chronological age–matched controls.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-25">Effects of script and group for the complex and simple spelling list</hd> <p>For the <emph>complex list</emph>, script and group were significant: respectively, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>, 73) = 12.97, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.15 and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref107">2</reflink>, 73) = 18.58, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.34. Manuscript words were copied faster than cursive words and CA controls were faster than the HA controls (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and DH group (<emph>p</emph> <.001), who did not differ from each other. Script and group interacted, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>, 73) = 15.53, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.30. Separate ANOVAs for each group revealed significant effects of script both for the HA controls, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref109">1</reflink>, 23) = 27.56, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.54, and the CA controls, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref110">1</reflink>, 26) = 24.62, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.49 (faster in manuscript; see Figure 3a), but not for the DH group. For the <emph>simple spelling list</emph>, script was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>, 73) = 6.86, <emph>p</emph> =.01, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.09 (manuscript was copied faster than cursive); group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>, 73) = 14.71, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.29 (CA controls were faster than both the HA, <emph>p</emph> =.003, and DH, <emph>p</emph> <.001, groups); and the interaction between script and group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref113">2</reflink>, 73) = 8.11, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.18. ANOVAs testing the effects of script in each group revealed significant effects of script only for the HA group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref114">1</reflink>, 23) = 14.08, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.38, and the CA group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref115">1</reflink>, 26) = 30.98, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.54. Both groups were significantly faster in manuscript than in cursive (see Figure 3b). In synthesis, script affected handwriting fluency in copying simple and complex word lists, but only in typically developing writers. For the DH group, no effects of script emerged.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-26">Effects of spelling list and group in cursive and manuscript</hd> <p>In <emph>cursive copying</emph>, both spelling list and group were significant: respectively, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>, 73) = 16.11, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.18 and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref117">2</reflink>, 73) = 10.67, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.23. Children were faster at copying the simple list, and the CA controls were faster than the HA controls (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and the DH group (<emph>p</emph> =.004). Group and spelling list interacted, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>, 73) = 6.48, <emph>p</emph> =.003, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.15. Separate ANOVAs for each group showed significant effects of the spelling list for the HA controls, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>, 23) = 12.56, <emph>p</emph> =.002, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.35, and CA controls, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref120">1</reflink>, 26) = 4.75, <emph>p</emph> =.04, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.15, but not for the DH group. The two control groups were faster at copying the simple spelling list. In <emph>manuscript copying</emph>, spelling list and group were significant: respectively, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref121">1</reflink>, 73) = 4.67, <emph>p</emph> =.03, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.06 and <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref122">2</reflink>, 73) = 26.78, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.42. Post hoc tests showed that the DH group was significantly slower in comparison with the CA controls, <emph>p</emph> <.001, and HA controls, <emph>p</emph> <.001. All groups were faster in copying the simple word list. In synthesis, in manuscript copying, orthographic complexity affected all three groups, who were faster when copying words with simple (one-to-one) spellings, whereas in cursive, the spelling list difficulty was significant only for the two control groups. The children in the DH group were, however, slower in copying words in manuscript in comparison with the control groups and in cursive compared with the CA group.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-27">Legibility</hd> <p>Group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>, 73) = 26.94, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.43: The DH group produced fewer legible words than the CA controls (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and the HA controls (<emph>p</emph> =.01), and the HA group produced fewer legible words than the CA group (<emph>p</emph> =.002). The interaction between script and group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref124">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref125">73</reflink>) = 3.03, <emph>p</emph> =.05, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.08. The effects of script were thus examined within each group. These analyses revealed that the effect of script was significant only for the HA controls, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref126">1</reflink>, 24) = 20.72, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.46. In word copying, they produced more legible words in cursive than in manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-28">Discussion</hd> <p>Some researchers have suggested that the motor difficulties that often co-occur with developmental dyslexia can explain the handwriting problems associated with this reading deficit ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref127">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref128">17</reflink>]). An alternative hypothesis of the association between DH is that slowness and dysfluency in handwriting are a consequence of the hesitations in spelling that are characteristic of children with dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref129">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref130">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref131">35</reflink>]). This second hypothesis has found some empirical support from studies conducted in a deep orthographic system (in English; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref132">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref133">35</reflink>]). The present study allowed us to extend these findings also to a shallow orthographic system (Italian), adding thus further support to the hypothesis of a linguistic (spelling) origin of the handwriting problems observed in developmental dyslexia.</p> <p>Consistently with prior studies conducted both in deep ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref134">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref135">35</reflink>]) and shallow ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref136">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref137">29</reflink>]) orthographies, the DH participants in this study had significant handwriting difficulties associated with dyslexia. They had problems in handwriting single letters as well as words, and when writing from memory (as in the alphabet task) or copying. Their motor control in handwriting was immature for their age, as demonstrated by the fact that the legibility of their written products in word dictation was lower than that of CA controls and, in word copying, was even lower than that of beginner writers (HA controls).</p> <p>The study explored the interaction between the handwriting and spelling difficulties of these students by asking them to perform word-dictation tasks and copying tasks in different scripts (manuscript and cursive, i.e., varying graphomotor complexity), and with words of different orthographic complexity (simple and complex words). On the word-dictation tasks, in spelling, the participants of the DH group performed significantly worse than the control groups (CA and HA) and were the only ones significantly affected by orthographic complexity (i.e., spelling simple or complex words). On the copying tasks, their spelling was worse than that of their CA controls. These findings were expected and are in line with the extant literature ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref138">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref139">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref140">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref141">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Handwriting legibility and fluency were explored by sentence and word-copying tasks. In line with prior studies ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref142">35</reflink>]), we found that the participants in the DH group were significantly slower than their CA controls in word and sentence copying. Critically, they were even slower than the HA controls (second graders), who, although matched on handwriting skills, showed a better spelling performance than these students on the word-dictation task. This suggests that spelling processes have a role in the poor handwriting of students with dyslexia. In line with the hypothesis that motor control plays, instead, a minor role in the handwriting problems of these students ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref143">34</reflink>]), script (variations in the motor patterns of handwriting) significantly affected handwriting fluency in both control groups (CA and HA group) in word copying, but did not affect the performance of the DH group (see Figure 3). Only spelling complexity significantly affected the handwriting fluency of this group (like the other two groups, the DH group was faster in copying the words with simple one-to-one spellings). Moreover, in sentence copying, contrary to the control groups (CA and HA group) who showed greater handwriting speed in manuscript, the children with DH showed greater speed in cursive copying (the condition that presumably required greater graphomotor control).</p> <p>In synthesis, the slower handwriting of the DH group seemed to depend on other factors than poor motor control alone. Other authors have argued that lack of automaticity ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref144">13</reflink>]) or difficulties with the principles of rhythmic organization, which are common to linguistic (reading) and motor (handwriting) processes ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref145">29</reflink>]), could explain the association between the reading and handwriting deficits observed in children with developmental dyslexia. On the contrary, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref146">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref147">35</reflink>]) explained the slow handwriting of children with dyslexia as a direct consequence of their (linguistic) difficulties with spelling: Due to their greater difficulties in retrieving correct spelling patterns, these children would pause more during word transcription. The findings of this study concur to support this latter hypothesis. It is remarkable that these findings are obtained in a very shallow orthography, where spelling is less demanding than in English, and graphomotor abilities can affect more transcription. The hypothesis that poor spelling processes are involved in handwriting problems can also explain why, in general, motor instruction alone does not produce better handwriting skills in children ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref148">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Yet, children with dyslexia can also present significant graphomotor problems ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref149">13</reflink>]), and these difficulties can explain other aspects of their handwriting performance. Indeed, in word copying, the handwriting of the DH participants of this study was less legible than that of the CA and HA groups. Differently from handwriting speed, handwriting legibility was in no group (DH, CA, or HA) affected by spelling complexity. Spelling and motor difficulties could explain different dimensions of the handwriting performance of the DH group: The poor legibility could reflect their poor motor control during handwriting; the poor handwriting fluency could, instead, reflect the nonautomatic retrieval of orthographic patterns (correct letter sequences; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref150">34</reflink>]). This interpretation is in line with other recent findings ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref151">13</reflink>]), which show that in children with developmental coordination disorder associated with dyslexia, motor problems are more strongly associated with handwriting legibility than with handwriting speed, which is, instead, more strongly related to the reading deficit of these students.</p> <p>Spelling was a difficult task for the DH group. Their spelling was more accurate when they could use one-to-one sound–letter mapping procedures (in the simple word list). Reading research shows that in Italian, the prolonged use of sublexical strategies explains the deficit in reading speed of children with dyslexia ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref152">3</reflink>]). This likely happens in spelling too, with consequences on handwriting fluency.</p> <hd id="AN0141602326-29">Implications and Limitations of the Study</hd> <p>The results of the present study suggest that children's handwriting in different scripts should be a target of the assessment and intervention designed for developmental dyslexia. It is interesting that the DH group showed an advantage for cursive handwriting (in sentence copying). If the ability to comply with the principles of the rhythmic organization of handwriting is impaired in these students ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref153">29</reflink>]), learning to use a joined script may be a valid support to improve their fluency (and rhythm) in transcription. Syllabic transcription and lexical transcription are likely easier in a joined script like cursive. Early introduction of cursive in spelling instruction could support spelling acquisition in children with dyslexia, especially the acquisition of orthographically complex words. Dyslexic children with handwriting problems are often encouraged to use manuscript letters, to improve the legibility of their texts. The results of this study suggest that this does not significantly affect their legibility and can further slow down their writing, with consequences on their spelling. Intervention studies that compare the effects of teaching word spelling in different scripts could test this hypothesis. The way in which the teaching of script and spelling are integrated in the early school years needs also to be better explored to lead informed instructional decisions on when introducing different scripts during primary school and recommending the use of cursive (or manuscript) to children with dyslexia.</p> <p>Approximately half of the children with dyslexia who participated in this study had significant handwriting problems (a performance below 1.5 <emph>SD</emph>), and half had less severe handwriting difficulties. However, the handwriting and spelling skills of these two groups did not differ significantly. A limitation of the current study is that it did not involve students with a clear diagnosis of developmental coordination disorder (see [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref154">13</reflink>]). Differences between students with dyslexia with or without co-occurring motor coordination problems should be thus further explored.</p> <p>The results of this study suggest that graphomotor problems in children with dyslexia do not interfere with spelling and affect handwriting fluency less than their spelling problems. A second important limitation of the present study is having provided only offline (paper-and-pencil) measures of the spelling and handwriting performance of these children. Direct evidence in support of the conclusion that spelling influences handwriting fluency in this population can only come from studies in which the interaction between spelling and graphomotor processes is recorded online during transcription (see [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref155">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref156">35</reflink>]). Digital tools like writing tablets and eye-tracking techniques offer valuable means to explore the spelling and handwriting performance of students with dyslexia and should be integrated in future studies to provide a more comprehensive analysis of these processes.</p> <ref id="AN0141602326-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref39" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Angelelli P., Notarnicola A., Judica A., Zoccolotti P., Luzzatti C. (2010). Spelling impairments in Italian dyslexic children: Phenomenological changes in primary school. Cortex, 46(10), 1299–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.06.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref42" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arfé B., Cona E., Merella A. (2018). Implicit training of spelling skills in Italian children with dyslexia. Topics in Language Disorders, 38, 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barca L., Burani C., Di Filippo G., Zoccolotti P. (2006). Italian developmental dyslexic and proficient readers: Where are the differences? Brain and Language, 98(3), 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref29" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett A. L., Henderson S. E., Scheib B., Schulz J. (2011). Handwriting difficulties and their assessment in young adults with DCD: Extension of the DASH for 17- to 25-year-olds. Journal of Adult Development, 18(3), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-011-9121-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger V. W., Nielsen K. H., Abbott R. D., Wijsman E., Raskind W. (2008). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref58" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger V. W., Vaughan K. B., Graham S., Abbott R. D., Abbott S. P., Rogan L. W.,... Reed E. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 652–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref60" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger V. W., Yates C., Cartwright A., Rutberg J., Remy E., Abbott R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing, 4(3), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01027151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref71" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blason L., Borean M., Bravar L., Zoia S. (2004). Il corsivo dalla A alla Z: Un metodo per insegnare i movimenti della scrittura [Coursive from A to Z: A method to teach handwriting. Theory]. La teoria. Erickson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref41" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Burani C., Barca L., Ellis A. W. (2006). Orthographic complexity and word naming in Italian: Some words are more transparent than others. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193855</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruck M. (1993). Component spelling skills of college-students with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaix Y., Albaret J.-M., Brassard C., Cheuret E., Castelnau P., Benesteau J.,... Demonet J. (2007). Motor impairments in dyslexia: The influence of attention disorders. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 11, 368–374.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connelly V., Campbell S., MacLean M., Barnes J. (2006). Contribution of lower order skills to the written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2901_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Di Brina C., Averna R., Rampoldi P., Rossetti S., Penge R. (2018). Reading and writing skills in children with specific learning disabilities with and without developmental coordination disorder. Motor Control, 22(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1123/mc.2016-0006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Berninger V. W., Abbott R. D., Abbott S. P., Whitaker D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students. A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S., Weintraub N., Berninger V. W. (1998). The relationship between handwriting style and speed and legibility. Journal of Educational Research, 91(5), 290–296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammill D. D., Pearson N. A., Voress J. K. (1994). Test TPV. Test di percezione visiva e integrazione visuo-motoria [TPV test: Test of visual perception and visuo-motor integration] [Edizione Italiana, a cura di Dario Ianes] [Italian edition by Dario Ianes]. Centro Studi Erickson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haslum M. N., Miles T. R. (2007). Motor performance and dyslexia in a national cohort of 10-year-old children. Dyslexia, 13(4), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebert M., Kearns D. M., Hayes J. B., Bazis P., Cooper S. (2018). Why children with dyslexia struggle with writing and how to help them. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_lshss-dyslc-18-0024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kandel S., Valdois S. (2006). Syllables as functional units in a copying task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400018378</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim Y.-S., Al Otaiba S., Puranik C., Folsom J. S., Greulich L., Wagner R. K. (2011). Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam S. S. Y., McBride C. (2018). Learning to write: The role of handwriting for Chinese spelling in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 917–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert E., Alamargot D., Larocque D., Caporossi G. (2011). Dynamics of the spelling process during a copy task: Effects of regularity and frequency. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Experimentale, 65(3), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert E., Kandel S., Fayol M., Esperet E. (2008). The effect of the number of syllables on handwriting production. Reading and Writing, 21(9), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9095-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lefly D. L., Pennington B. F. (1991). Spelling errors and reading fluency in compensated adult dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 143–162.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Limpo T., Alves R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students' text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marconi L., Ott M., Pesenti E., Ratti D., Tavella M. (1993). Lessico Elementare. Dati statistici sull'italiano letto e scritto dai bambini delle elementari [Elementary lexicon. Statistical data on the Italian that elementary school children read and write]. Zanichelli.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maughan B., Messer J., Collishaw S., Pickles A., Snowling M., Yule W., Rutter M. (2009). Persistence of literacy problems: Spelling in adolescence and at mid-life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 893–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02079.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montgomery D. (2008). Cohort analysis of writing in Year 7 following two, four and seven years of the National Literacy Strategy. Support for Learning, 23, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00362.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pagliarini E., Guasti M. T., Toneatto C., Granocchio E., Riva F., Sarti D.,... Stucchi N. (2015). Dyslexic children fail to comply with the rhythmic constraints of handwriting. Human Movement Science, 42, 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.04.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prunty M. M., Barnett A. L., Wilmut K., Plumb M. S. (2013). Handwriting speed in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: Are they really slower? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(9), 2927–2936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prunty M. M., Barnett A. L., Wilmut K., Plumb M. S. (2014). An examination of writing pauses in the handwriting of children with developmental coordination disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(11), 2894–2905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roux S., McKeeff T. J., Grosjacques G., Afonso O., Kandel S. (2013). The interaction between central and peripheral processes in handwriting production. Cognition, 127(2), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santangelo T., Graham S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 225–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sumner E., Connelly V., Barnett A. L. (2013). Children with dyslexia are slow writers because they pause more often and not because they are slow at handwriting execution. Reading and Writing, 26(6), 991–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9403-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sumner E., Connelly V., Barnett A. L. (2014). The influence of spelling ability on handwriting production: Children with and without dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1441–1447. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035785</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sumner E., Connelly V., Barnett A. L. (2016). The influence of spelling ability on vocabulary choices when writing for children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414552018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tressoldi P. E., Cornoldi C. (2000). BVSCO: Batteria per la valutazione della scrittura e della competenza ortografica nella scuola dell'obbligo [Battery for the assessment of spelling and writing skills of children from primary to secondary school]. Giunti Psychometrics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner R. K., Puranik C. S., Foorman B., Foster E., Wilson L. G., Tschinkel E., Kantor P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0141602326-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was funded by a grant of the University of Padova, grant no. BIRD199955.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Barbara Arfé; Francesca Corato; Eleonora Pizzocaro and Anne Merella</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref148"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1242809
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effects of Script and Orthographic Complexity on the Handwriting and Spelling Performance of Children with Dyslexia
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Arfé%2C+Barbara%22">Arfé, Barbara</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Corato%2C+Francesca%22">Corato, Francesca</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pizzocaro%2C+Eleonora%22">Pizzocaro, Eleonora</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Merella%2C+Anne%22">Merella, Anne</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Learning+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Learning Disabilities</i></searchLink>. Mar-Apr 2020 53(2):96-108.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handwriting%22">Handwriting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spelling%22">Spelling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dyslexia%22">Dyslexia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Problems%22">Learning Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Duplication%22">Duplication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychomotor+Skills%22">Psychomotor Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Perception%22">Visual Perception</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Italy%22">Italy</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Frostig+Developmental+Test+of+Visual+Perception%22">Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/0022219419892845
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-2194
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Handwriting and spelling problems are often associated in dyslexia. However, the nature of their association is still unclear, and most of the existing research in this area is on deep orthographies (mainly English). The extent to which findings are applicable across languages is uncertain. This article examines the effects of script (manuscript/cursive) and orthographic complexity (complex/simple spellings) on the word dictation and word-copying performance of a group of 24 Italian children with dyslexia and handwriting difficulties (DH group, aged 8-10). Their performance was compared with that of a chronologically age-matched group (CA) and a group of younger children matched to the DH group for their handwriting skills (HA: handwriting age group). Children performed two classical handwriting tasks: the alphabet task and a sentence-copy task, and dictation and copy tasks of orthographically complex words and orthographically simple words. Copying was performed in manuscript and cursive. The results show that although the DH group shows a significant deficit in graphomotor processes, orthographic complexity more than the visual-motor characteristics of the task (i.e., script) affects their performance in handwriting. An advantage for cursive script in DH children, but not in the other two groups, emerges from the study.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1242809
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1242809
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/0022219419892845
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 96
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Handwriting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spelling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dyslexia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Duplication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychomotor Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Perception
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Italy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effects of Script and Orthographic Complexity on the Handwriting and Spelling Performance of Children with Dyslexia
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Arfé, Barbara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Corato, Francesca
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pizzocaro, Eleonora
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Merella, Anne
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-2194
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Learning Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1