633866

research-article2016
LDXXXX10.1177/0022219416633866Journal of Learning DisabilitiesBarrientos

Article
Journal of Learning Disabilities

Handwriting Development in Spanish

2017, Vol. 50(5) 552­–563
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Children With and Without Learning sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219416633866

Disabilities: A Graphonomic Approach journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com

Pablo Barrientos, MS1

Abstract
The central purpose of this study was to analyze the dynamics of handwriting movements in real time for Spanish students in
early grades with and without learning disabilities. The sample consisted of 120 children from Grades 1 through 3 (primary
education), classified into two groups: with learning disabilities and without learning disabilities. The Early Grade Writing
Assessment tasks selected for this purpose were writing the alphabet in order from memory, alphabet copying in cursive
and manuscript, and allograph selection. The dynamics of these four handwriting tasks were recorded using graphonomic
tablets (type Wacom Intuos-4), Intuos Inking pens, and Eye and Pen 2 software. Several events were recorded across
four different tasks: velocity, pressure, time invested in pauses, and automaticity. The results demonstrated significant
graphonomic variations between groups across grades, depending on the type of task.

Keywords
graphonomics, handwriting, writing disabilities, transcription, Early Grade Writing Assessment

Handwriting is a complex human activity that entails an
intricate blend of cognitive, kinaesthetic, and perceptual-
motor component skills that contribute to our ability to
write (Berninger et al., 1997; Bonny, 1992; Brooks,
Vaughan, & Berninger, 1999; Reisman, 1991, 1993;
Rosenblum, Weiss, & Parush, 2003). At the basic level,
the child needs (a) good postural control to develop the
gross and fine motor skills necessary for handwriting and
(b) effective visual perception to develop adequate visual
motor integration (Amundson & Weil, 1996). To learn
how to write, a child has to learn which abstract linguistic
symbols (letters) represent sounds of speech.
Simultaneously, she or he develops the motor skills that
produce the spatio-temporal realization of letters (Kandel,
Soler, Valdois, & Gros, 2006). Motorically, children first
begin to learn handwriting by transposing their drawing to
the tracing of letters but display many individual differ-
ences in both quantitative (speed, precision) as well as
qualitative (legibility) aspects of production (Hamstra-
Bletz & Blot, 1990; Mojet, 1991; Ziviani, 1984).
Van Galen’s (1991) model provides a consistent expla-
nation of the integration of these cognitive and motor pro-
cesses in handwriting as a series of hierarchical modules.
The linguistic aspects of handwriting are higher in the hier-
archy than the more local parameters, such as size, direc-
tion, and force. In this model, various modules can be active
in parallel. The higher order modules anticipate and process
information related to forthcoming parts of the word while
processing local parameters. Because processing capacities
are limited, when various modules of different representa-
tional levels are active simultaneously, there is a supple-
mentary cognitive load that results in an increase in
movement duration and trajectory length. Some studies on
children’s handwriting also used movement dysfluency as
an indicator of a supplementary processing load during par-
allel processing (Meulenbroek & Van Galen, 1988; Mojet,
1991; Zesiger, Mounoud, & Hauert, 1993).
According to Alamargot and Fayol (2009), the develop-
ment of expertise is subtended by two mechanisms, with
one gradually taking over from the other. As graphomotor
processes (programming and execution of the written
trace) and linguistic processes (lexical and grammatical
spelling) become automatized, they gradually give way to
the development of an increasingly complex strategy of
composition underlaid by a growing number of linguistic,
rhetorical, and pragmatic constraints. According to capac-
ity theory (Just & Carpenter, 1992; McCutchen, 1996), the
automatization of “low-level” processes via practice frees
up cognitive resources, making them available for
1
University of the Valley of Guatemala, Guatemala
Corresponding Author:
Pablo Barrientos, Departamento de Psicología, Universidad del Valle
de Guatemala, 18 Avenida 11-95, Zona 15. Vista Hermosa III. Apartado
Postal No. 82. 01901. Guatemala, Guatemala, C.A.
Email: pebarrientos@uvg.edu.gt
Barrientos 553
“high-level” controlled processes, which can then be fired
in parallel with the “low-level” ones (parallel processing
during graphomotor execution; Alamargot, Dansac,
Chesnet, & Fayol, 2007).
By early elementary school, handwriting is neither
solely a visual (Berninger & Rutberg, 1992) nor solely a
motor (Abbott & Berninger, 1993) process—it is an inte-
gration of orthographic codes (letter forms), phonological
codes (names), and graphomotor codes (output)
(Berninger, 2000). During their first 3 years of school,
children are expected to acquire a level of handwriting
proficiency that enables them to make skillful use of hand-
writing as a tool to carry out their work at school (Laszlo
& Broderick, 1991; Maeland & Karlsdottir, 1991). As of
Grade 4, writing assignments become longer and more
frequent. Children are required to hand in papers, write
essays, and give longer responses to test questions
(Cornhill & Case-Smith, 1996; Reisman, 1993). Most
children find that they are ready to handle these demands,
and the proficiency of their handwriting is reflected by
their ability to produce legible text with minimum effort
(Rosenblum, Weiss, & Parush, 2003).
According to Medwell and Wray (2007), the automatic-
ity of letter production appears to facilitate the ability to
deal with the higher order, complex tasks of planning, orga-
nizing, revising, and regulating the production of text.
Research has suggested that automatic letter writing is the
single best predictor of length and quality of written compo-
sition in the primary years (Graham, Berninger, Abbott,
Abbott, & Witaker, 1997), in secondary school, and even in
the postcompulsory education years (Connelly, Campbell,
Maclean, & Barnes, 2006; Jones, 2004; Peverley, 2006).
Graphonomics Measures and
Individual Differences
In the literature, researchers have discussed various kine-
matic parameters (e.g., maximum velocities and accelera-
tions) to describe the execution of handwriting movements
of healthy children and adults (Van Galen, Portier, Smits-
Engelsmen, & Schomaker, 1993) as well as of children and
adults with a variety of disorders, such as attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder or major depression (Tucha &
Lange, 2001; Tucha et al., 2002). The parameter “number
of inversions in the velocity profile” of a movement (NIV)
has been shown to be of particular importance in the assess-
ment of highly skilled motor activities (Tucha, Tucha, &
Lange, 2008).
The analysis of the type of errors made by children during
writing instruction has provided valuable insights about the
way in which children acquire writing skills. The number of
errors, dysfluencies (defined as the number of velocity
extremes), and gaze-raising (to consult the model in the course
of copying) has been analyzed mainly in developmental
studies of handwriting. Children produce numerous and varied
errors, ranging from misspellings to mere letter orientation
errors. However, in later stages of development, the number of
errors decreases dramatically with the automation of writing,
so dysfluencies and gaze-raisings disappear completely
(Afonso, 2013). All of these measures are likely to tap into the
peripheral process of writing, given their absence once writing
movements have become automatized.
The velocity profiles indicate that all handwriting move-
ments represent fully automated movements. This finding
complements the findings of Medwell and Wray (2007),
who stated that when assessing handwriting efficiency, the
speed of writing has to be considered. However, it is not
the speed/velocity itself that provides information about
handwriting automaticity; it is the course of the velocity
profile (Tucha et al., 2008). Tseng and Chow (2000) found
that a group of students with slow handwriting had poorer
results in their perceptual-motor skills and capacity to
maintain attention as compared to a group with normal
speed. They suggested that quality and speed of handwrit-
ing should be addressed as “valid and independent indica-
tors of handwriting performance” (O’Mahony, Dempsey,
& Killeen, 2008).
Subsequent work by Rosenblum, Parush, and Weiss
(2003) examined and compared the writing processes of pro-
ficient and nonproficient Grade 3 students using computer-
ized temporal measures. Nonproficient handwriters required
significantly more time to perform handwriting tasks, as their
“in air” time was especially longer, their handwriting speed
was slower, and they wrote fewer characters per minute when
compared to the proficient handwriters. Lam, Au, Leung, and
Li-Tsang (2011), working with Chinese primary school stu-
dents from Grades 2 through 6, found that both typical stu-
dents and students with dyslexia in the higher grades
produced more characters and had faster speed. Similarly,
Chang and Yu (2013) recently reported on the major differ-
ences in kinematic and kinetic characteristics between chil-
dren with and without dysgraphia, using online methods with
Taiwanese students from Grades 1 and 2. They found that
pausing on paper and dysfluency of stroke movement were
better indicators of writing difficulties than the time or length
of wandering in the air. However, these studies did not
include the analysis of computerized temporal handwriting
characteristics across different tasks; furthermore, they were
made in nonalphabetical systems or in a Hebrew writing sys-
tem for which the results may not be extrapolated to the
Spanish writing system.
Therefore, the present study was designed to explore the
graphonomic profile of Spanish children with and without
LD in transcription in the early grades across different writ-
ing tasks. No other studies focused on analyzing the grapho-
nomic profile of children with learning disabilities (LD) in
writing across different tasks in alphabetical systems were
found.
554 Journal of Learning Disabilities 50(5)
Method
Participants
The participants for this study were 120 students from a state
on the island of Tenerife in the autonomous community of the
Canary Islands. They were of both genders, from Grades 1 to
3, and ranged in age from 6 to 9 years old. Participants with
LD in transcription (handwriting and spelling), LD–TD,
were identified by a percentile score below 25 on the Letter
Production and Word Production subtests from the Spanish
Standardized Early Grade Writing Assessment (EGWA;
Jiménez, 2015b). The characteristics of this group broke
down as follows: Grade 1, n = 19 (15 boys, 4 girls), age M =
81.8, SD = 3.50; Grade 2, n = 22 (11 boys, 11 girls), age M =
92.4, SD = 6.09; and Grade 3, n = 19 (12 boys, 7 girls), age M
= 105.1, SD = 3.64. Children without LD–TD (non-LD) were
identified by a percentile score above 25 on the Letter
Production and Word Production subtests from the EGWA.
The characteristics of this group broke down as follows:
Grade 1, n = 20 (8 boys, 12 girls), age M = 81.3, SD = 3.54;
Grade 2, n = 20 (12 boys, 8 girls), age M = 87.1, SD = 9.36;
and Grade 3, n = 20 (8 boys, 12 girls), age M = 104.4, SD =
3.48. The LD–TD and non-LD–TD groups were balanced by
gender, χ2(1) = 3.36, p = .06, and no significant differences
were found between the groups based on age, F(1, 118) =
1.079, p = .301. Exclusion criteria used were intellectual,
sensory, physical, mental, or motor deficiencies as deter-
mined by the Specific Educational Support Needs report
from each educational center.
Instruments
EGWA (Jiménez, in press). A total of four EGWA tasks
were selected for this study: (a) writing the alphabet in order
from memory, to verify if the student is able to reproduce
all alphabet letters in the correct order from memory; (b)
alphabet copying in manuscript and (c) alphabet copying
in cursive, which are displayed if the student has acquired
the motor patterns for writing letters in both cursive and
manuscript; and (d) allograph selection, to see if the student
is able to select an allograph (i.e., lowercase letter) for each
capital letter (for a detailed description of each task, see
Jiménez, 2016). These tasks were adapted from the origi-
nal pen-and-paper EGWA format to the computerized Eye
and Pen 2 software format (Alamargot, Chesnet, Dansac, &
Ros, 2006). This adaptation consisted of programming the
script for each task in the “Script” field of the acquisition
panel of Eye and Pen 2. Each task had specific script com-
mands according to the necessary parameters of each task.
Several events were recorded: (a) Velocity was the aver-
age speed reached by the child during the task, measured in
centimeters/seconds, when all pen contact points with the
tablet surface were added; (b) pressure was measured in
Hertz as the average pressure level (force) made with the tip
of the Inking pen during the total strokes done by the par-
ticipant in one minute; (c) time invested in pauses was mea-
sured in seconds, calculated by the duration that the pen
stopped contact with the tablet surface during the course of
1 min; and (d) automaticity was calculated as the distance
executed through a certain duration. This variable is repre-
sented by the quantity of letters written during the time used
to perform each of the tasks.
Procedure
The digital recording of handwriting was controlled by the
Eye and Pen 2 software. The EGWA tasks were run on an
Aspire One 722 computer. The tasks were conducted in
groups of five students at a time, in a soundproof room. Each
participant could view the instructions on the notebook screen,
and then she or he had to write the graphemes adequately for
his or her grade level on a sheet of lined paper. The paper was
placed over the digitizer tablet (Wacom Intuos-4) and changed
for each task that the student performed. To execute handwrit-
ing, an Intuos Inking pen (KP1302) was used. Each of the
digitizing tablets had specific set parameters for beginning
and ending zones; these areas had to be triggered with the tip
of the Inking pen at the beginning and end of each task. An
entire session lasted approximately 15 min.
Data Analysis
Use of the Eye and Pen 2 allowed us to conduct a subanaly-
sis of the total data production. For this study, only the first
minute of performance was taken into account. Data were
exported to the statistical analysis and data management
program SPSS version 21.0.
Results
To analyze whether children with and without LD in tran-
scription across grades showed differences in graphonomic
measures, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted using a general linear model with the inter-
subject independent variables of group (LD–TD and non-
LD–TD) and grade (1, 2, 3); the dependent variables used
were velocity, pressure, time invested in pauses, and
automaticity.
Writing the Alphabet in Order From Memory
Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations for the
graphonomic variables by group and grade for writing the
alphabet in order from memory. Results revealed an effect
based on the group variable, Wilks’ lambda = .81, F(4, 109)
= 6.29, p < .01, η2 = .19, and an effect due to the grade vari-
able, Wilks’ lambda = .57, F(8, 218) = 8.79, p < .01, η2 =
.24. However, there was a significant interaction of group
Barrientos 555

Table 1.  Means and Standard Deviations for the Graphonomic Measures by Group and Grade for Writing the Alphabet in Order
From Memory Task.

Grade  

Task Group 1 2 3 Total

Velocity LD–TD M 1.50 1.71 1.79 1.67
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.56
  Non-LD–TD M 1.53 1.77 2.34 1.88
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 0.52 0.57 0.84 .73
Pressure LD–TD M 521.89 466.77 505.44 495.88
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 166.38 169.86 188.02 173.20
  Non-LD–TD M 574.45 496.15 523.55 531.38
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 169.75 140.46 152.56 155.56
Time invested in pauses LD–TD M 5,418.29 2,826.11 2,239.40 3,448.50
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 2,854.65 1,197.74 800.37 2,233.03
  Non-LD–TD M 2,843.17 2,507.91 1,535.13 2,295.40
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 1,061.10 1,348.46 1,060.26 1,274.02
Automaticity LD–TD M 9.94 15.91 18.22 14.77
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 3.90 5.29 5.40 5.93
  Non-LD–TD M 13.85 17.25 28.44 19.85
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 4.21 5.36 11.78 9.96

Note. Velocity is expressed in centimeters per second, pressure is expressed in Hz, pauses are expressed in milliseconds, and automaticity is expressed
by the number of written letters in 1 min.

(LD–TD and non-LD–TD) and grade: Wilks’ lambda = .74,
F(8, 218) = 4.51, p < .01, η2 = .14, indicating that the group
and grade effect was affecting the graphonomic variables.
Follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated that this interac-
tion occurred for the graphonomic variables of time invested
in pauses, F(2, 112) = 6.18, p < .01, η2 = .10, and automatic-
ity, F(2, 112) = 4.72, p < .05, η2 = .08.
Regarding time invested in pauses, subsequent tests of
simple main effects confirmed that there were significant dif-
ferences between groups (LD–TD and non-LD–TD) when the
performance of Grade 1 and Grade 2 children was compared,
F(1, 118) = 6.57, p < .05, and when the performance between
children in Grades 1 and 3 was compared, F(1, 118) = 4.19,
p < .05, but not when the performance between the children in
Grades 2 and 3 was compared, F(1, 118) = .29, p = .59. On the
other hand, there were significant differences between groups
(LD–TD and non-LD–TD) only for Grade 1, F(1, 118) = 19.8,
p < .001. This means that students with LD–TD invested more
time in pauses at the beginning of their schooling compared to
the trajectory shown by the non-LD–TD group, and the LD–
TD group experienced a significant decrease of time invested
in pauses for Grade 2 (see Figure 1).
Regarding the index of automaticity, subsequent tests of
simple main effects were conducted, and they confirmed sig-
nificant differences between groups (LD–TD and non-LD–
TD) when comparing the performance between Grades 2 and
3, F(1, 117) = 5.50, p < .05, but not when comparing the per-
formance between Grades 1 and 3, F(1, 117) = 3.73, p = .056,
or between Grades 1 and 2, F(1, 117) = .19, p = .66. There
were only significant differences between groups only in
Grade 3, F(1, 117) = 17.33, p < .01. This means that students
with LD–TD had more difficulty at the beginning of their
schooling, when executing automatic letter traces that they
needed to recover the graphemes from memory and write
them, in contrast to the students without LD–TD, who showed
a significant increase in their level of automaticity at Grade 3
as compared with children with LD–TD (see Figure 2).
Alphabet Copying in Cursive
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the gra-
phonomic variables by group and grade for alphabet copying
in cursive format. The results revealed an effect based on
grade, Wilks’ lambda = .77, F(8, 216) = 3.73, p < .01, η2 = .12.
556 Journal of Learning Disabilities 50(5)

Figure 1.  The Interaction of Group × Grade on Time Invested in Pauses in Writing the Alphabet in Order From Memory Task

Figure 2.  The Interaction of Group × Grade on Automaticity in Writing the Alphabet in Order From Memory Task

There was no effect based on group (LD–TD and non-LD– η2 = .06. Univariate ANOVAs analysis indicated that the gra-
TD), Wilks’ lambda = .98, F(4, 108) = .48, p = .75, η2 = .02, phonomic variables of velocity, pressure, and time invested in
and no significant interaction of group (LD–TD and non-LD– pauses did not differ significantly across grades for cursive
TD) and grade, Wilks’ lambda = .89, F(8, 216) = 1.67, p = .10, copying.
Barrientos 557

Table 2.  Means and Standard Deviations for the Graphonomic Measures by Group and Grade for the Alphabet Copying Cursive
Task.

Grade  

Task Group 1 2 3 Total

Velocity LD–TD M 1.21 1.21 0.96 1.13
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 0.83 0.52 0.28 0.59
  Non-LD–TD M 1.36 1.19 1.19 1.24
  n 19 20 20 59
  SD 0.42 0.43 0.53 0.46
Pressure LD–TD M 574.06 519.05 535.89 541.34
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 154.52 159.48 197.17 169.19
  Non-LD–TD M 581.42 482.80 529.25 530.31
  n 19 20 20 59
  SD 171.33 152.71 148.51 160.03
Time invested in pauses LD–TD M 5,054.99 3,657.06 3,571.83 4,064.45
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 3,758.14 2,040.87 1,103.82 2,561.40
  Non-LD–TD M 3,749.36 3,961.86 3,212.76 3,639.50
  n 19 20 20 59
  SD 937.06 1,732.95 1,823.68 1,564.73
Automaticity LD–TD M 9.56 11.77 9.91 10.51
  n 18 22 18 58
  SD 4.41 4.70 2.33 4.07
  Non-LD–TD M 10.68 10.40 12.85 11.32
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 2.70 3.57 5.98 4.40

Note. Velocity is expressed in centimeters per second, pressure is expressed in Hz, pauses are expressed in milliseconds, and automaticity is expressed
by the number of written letters in 1 min.

Alphabet Copying in Manuscript
Table 3 displays the means and standard deviations for the
graphonomic variables by group and grade for alphabet
copying in manuscript format. The outcomes exposed no
effect based on group (LD–TD and non-LD–TD), Wilks’
lambda = .95, F(4, 110) = 1.34, p = .26, η2 = .05, although
an effect due to the grade variable was found, Wilks’ lambda
= .77, F(8, 220) = 3.84, p < .01, η2 = .12. No significant
interaction of group (LD–TD and non-LD–TD) and grade
was found, Wilks’ lambda = .88, F(8, 220) = 1.75, p = .08,
η2 = .06. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs revealed that the
graphonomic variables of time invested in pauses, F(2, 113)
= 8.71, p < .01, η2 = .13, and automaticity, F(2, 113) = 5.15,
p < .05, η2 = .08, differed significantly across grades.
Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni correction of
multiple comparisons confirmed significant differences in
the means of time invested in pauses and automaticity among
grades. After t tests between pairs were conducted to com-
pare differences between grades regarding time invested in
pauses, significant differences were found between the per-
formance of the Grades 1 and 2 students, t(79) = 2.93, p < .05,
and between the Grades 1 and 3 students, t(75) = 4.01, p <
.01. This suggests that students from Grade 1 made constant
and longer interruptions in the trajectory of their traces when
they performed the manuscript copying task as compared to
Grades 2 and 3 students. We also conducted t tests between
pairs to compare differences between grades for the variable
of automaticity. These confirmed significant differences
between grades when the performance between the Grades 1
and 3 students was compared, t(79) = 3.21, p < .05. This
means that students from Grade 1 had developed a lower
level of automaticity in the execution of manuscript traces as
compared with Grade 3 students.
Allograph Selection
Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations of the gra-
phonomic variables by group and grade for the allograph
selection task. The results revealed an effect based on group
(LD–TD and non-LD–TD), Wilks’ lambda = .90, F(4, 110)
= 3.08, p < .05, η2 = .10, and an effect due to the grade,
Wilks’ lambda = .57, F(8, 220) = 8.93, p < .01, η2 = .24. No
significant interaction of group (LD–TD and non-LD–TD)
558 Journal of Learning Disabilities 50(5)

Table 3.  Means and Standard Deviations for the Graphonomic Measures by Group and Grade for the Alphabet Copying Manuscript
Task.

Grade  

Task Group 1 2 3 Total

Velocity LD–TD M 1.10 1.10 .99 1.07
  n 18 22 18 59
  SD 0.67 0.47 0.17 0.48
  Non-LD–TD M 1.05 1.04 1.24 1.11
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 0.32 0.49 0.58 0.47
Pressure LD–TD M 562.42 569.91 587.11 572.75
  n 19 22 18 59
  SD 161.38 172.89 199.95 175.28
  Non-LD–TD M 636.90 606.45 579.50 607.62
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 147.48 114.61 169.61 145.11
Time invested in pauses LD–TD M 5273.58 3483.56 3352.85 4020.13
  n 19 22 18 59
  SD 2823.46 944.23 717.91 1926.13
  Non-LD–TD M 3993.24 3765.41 3092.82 3617.16
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 980.62 1462.30 1363.73 1321.28
Automaticity LD–TD M 9.10 11.77 11.33 10.78
  n 19 22 18 58
  SD 3.72 4.24 2.06 3.67
  Non-LD–TD M 10.15 11.57 14.15 11.96
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 2.39 5.60 6.13 5.18

Note. Velocity is expressed in centimeters per second, pressure is expressed in Hz, pauses are expressed in milliseconds, and automaticity is expressed
by the number of written letters in 1 min.

and grade was found, Wilks’ lambda = .88, F(8, 220) = 1.84,
p = .07, η2 = .06.
Univariate ANOVAs showed that the graphonomic vari-
ables of velocity, F(1, 113) = 6.388, p < .05, η2 = .05, time
invested in pauses, F(1, 113) = 7.41, p < .01, η2 = .06, and
automaticity, F(1, 113) = 8.93 p < .01, η2 = .07, differed signifi-
cantly between the LD–TD and non-LD–TD groups. These
differences between the groups in the graphonomic variables
suggest that students without LD–TD developed a significant
enhanced performance in the transcription of the allographs
since early grades. Univariate ANOVAs also pointed out that
the graphonomic measures of velocity, F(2, 113) = 4.70, p <
.05, η2 = .07, time invested in pauses, F(2, 113) = 24.7, p < .01,
η2 = .30, and automaticity, F(2, 113) = 26.91, p < .01, η2 = .32,
differed significantly across grades.
Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni correction of
multiple comparisons confirmed significant differences in
the means of velocity, time invested in pauses, and automa-
ticity between grades. After t tests between pairs were con-
ducted to compare differences between grades with regard
to velocity, results indicated that the students from Grade 1
showed significant differences from the students in Grade
2, t(79) = 2.60, p < .05, and from the students in Grade 3,
t(75) = 2.70, p < .05 (see Figure 3).
For the variable time invested in pauses, there were sig-
nificant differences between students from Grades 1 and 2,
t(79) = 3.94, p < .01, between students from Grades 1 and 3,
t(75) = 6.96, p < .01, and between students from Grades 2
and 3, t(78) = 3.17, p < .01 (see Figure 4). Finally, we found
the same pattern between grades for the measure of automa-
ticity: Grade 1 students displayed significant differences
from Grade 2 students, t(79) = 3.12, p < .01, and also from
Grade 3 students, t(75) = 7.36, p < .01. There was also a
significant difference between Grades 2 and 3 students,
t(78) = 4.39, p < .01 (see Figure 5).
These results confirmed that for the allograph selection
task students achieved faster velocity in Grades 2 and 3.
Younger students in Grade 1 invested more time in pauses,
whereas there was less time invested in pauses by Grade 2
students. The obtained values for automaticity showed that
students struggled more at the beginning of their schooling
(Grade 1) compared with Grades 2 and 3, signifying a main
effect of the variable grade over the graphonomic measures
mentioned above.
Barrientos 559

Table 4.  Means and Standard Deviations for the Graphonomic Measures by Group and Grade for the Allograph Selection Task.

Grade  

Task Group 1 2 3 Total

Velocity LD–TD M 1.22 1.55 1.50 1.43
  n 19 22 18 59
  SD 0.35 0.49 0.31 0.42
  Non-LD–TD M 1.48 1.67 1.73 1.64
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.47
Pressure LD–TD M 551.79 522.32 524.94 532.61
  n 19 22 18 59
  SD 168.36 149.02 189.23 165.87
  Non-LD–TD M 603.20 540.80 540.45 561.48
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 180.98 139.32 138.96 154.60
Time invested in pauses LD–TD M 4,538.46 3,116.48 2,208.81 3,297.49
  n 19 22 18 59
  SD 1,375.65 696.47 909.73 1,374.86
  Non-LD–TD M 3,353.33 2,744.08 2,070.16 2,722.52
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 1,095.95 1,163.75 1,406.24 1,318.74
Automaticity LD–TD M 9.63 13.50 17.56 13.49
  n 19 22 18 59
  SD 2.89 3.23 4.83 4.82
  Non-LD–TD M 12.45 15.50 20.74 16.23
  n 20 20 20 60
  SD 4.05 5.07 7.60 6.64

Note. Velocity is expressed in centimeters per second, pressure is expressed in Hz, pauses are expressed in milliseconds, and automaticity is expressed
by the number of written letters in 1 min.

Figure 3.  The Interaction of Group × Grade on Velocity in Allograph Selection Task
560 Journal of Learning Disabilities 50(5)

Figure 4.  The Interaction of Group × Grade on Time Invested in Pauses in Allograph Selection Task

Figure 5.  The Interaction of Group × Grade on Automaticity in Allograph Selection Task

Discussion
For this study, the dynamics of handwriting movements in
real time for Spanish students with LD (LD–TD) and with-
out LD (non-LD–TD) in early grades across different tasks
were analyzed. The results revealed that the best single gra-
phonomic predictor for describing the graphonomic hand-
writing profile of these groups depends on the type of task.
Writing the alphabet in order from memory is a task that
engages the student in cognitive and motor activities that
Barrientos 561
demand sequential and parallel processing, as the student
must prepare sequential graphonomic actions and at the
same time use short- and long-term memories to recover
the grapheme form. At this level, it is probable that the task
also demands use of both auditory-verbal memory (recov-
ering auditory-memorized sequence of the alphabet) and
visual-motor memory (recovering memory of the appear-
ance of the letters and how to form them). These parallel
processing abilities are necessary to place the proper letter
in the correct sequential order, suppressing the use of motor
execution of other possible graphemes. For instance, wait-
ing for a semantic representation to be planned or for a
linguistic form to be translated can bring graphomotor exe-
cution to a halt and generate a writing pause (McCutchen,
1996). In this context, the duration and frequency of pauses
can be regarded as indicators of processing complexity and
its associated cost (Chanquoy, Foulin, & Fayol, 1990;
Dansac & Alamargot, 1999; Foulin, 1995, 1998;
Schilperoord, 2002).
In this study, the results indicated that students in the
LD–TD group at Grade 1 invested more time in pauses,
which compromised the quantity of letters produced during
the first minute, demanding more use of cognitive resources.
This was not the case for the older Grades 2 and 3 students
in both the LD–TD and non-LD–TD groups. This finding
suggests that the cognitive and motor efforts that the LD–
TD group invested in planning the next letter trace were
higher at Grade 1. The time invested in pauses for this task
magnifies the differences in dysfluencies that younger
Spanish students with LD experience when they are com-
pared with peers without LD. In this study, the automaticity
performance when writing the alphabet in order from mem-
ory supports the hypothesis that students without LD
acquire free handwriting early through the automation of
sequential activation of motor programs stored in the form
of spatial codes (Thomassen & Van Galen, 1992). The dif-
ference between the LD–TD and non-LD–TD groups in
Grades 1 and 2 on the graphonomic variable of automaticity
was not evident between groups until Grade 3. The Grade 3
non-LD–TD group members achieved a stable capacity to
perform swiftly and accurately without the need for con-
scious-attention handwriting production of the alphabet in
order from memory. This might be due to the maturing of
the cognitive system as well as the fact that at the Grade 3
level the school curriculum started requiring more complex
writing abilities, demanding from the children a higher
order process for handwriting tasks that included the need
for planning, organizing, revising, and regulating the pro-
duction of text; in other words, an automatic handwriting
transcription of the alphabet is expected.
The graphonomic outcome was not the same for the
alphabet copying task in cursive format, as no differences
among the graphonomic variables were found. These find-
ings are consistent with those of Chang and Yu (2013), who
compared children with dysgraphia with a nondisabled con-
trol group. These authors did not find differences in any of
the graphonomic variables in copying tasks of Chinese
characters, taking into account that these symbols require a
higher number of strokes to be made per character than the
alphabet in Spanish. This confirms that other tasks should
be employed to assess automatic transcription using gra-
phonomic measures in early grades. The findings suggest
that the copying task uses more peripheral cognitive and
motor processes in handwriting when compared to the
memory letter and allograph selection tasks.
The alphabet copying task in manuscript format pro-
vides interesting evidence regarding no difference in the
graphonomic profile between groups (LD–TD and non-
LD–TD); however, there were differences through grades in
two of the graphonomic variables: time invested in pauses
and automaticity. The Grade 1students invested more time
copying each of the alphabet manuscript graphemes in
comparison to the Grades 2 and 3 students. This evidence
supports the idea that gaze movements interfere with motor
execution during copying tasks, suggesting that the younger
study participants needed more gaze movements to repro-
duce the manuscript grapheme because they had not com-
pletely internalized the motor programs for this type of
letter script. The students who participated in the study had
learned the cursive pattern before the manuscript. This type
of script is generally introduced in Grade 2. The level of
automatic transcription was different only between the
Grades 1 and 3 students, indicating that the outcome of the
alphabet copying task in manuscript format should only be
considered for assessing students at Grade 3, because in the
first two grades it is not the best identifier for delays in the
automatic copying transcription ability.
The results for the allograph selection task revealed that
the best single graphonomic variables for describing the dif-
ferences among groups (i.e., LD–TD and non-LD–TD)
were velocity, time invested in pauses, and automaticity.
The velocity profile of the non-LD–TD group was faster in
each of the three grades; students with LD–TD were slower
in the activation of intentions because they may lack auto-
mation skill in the process of selecting a specific allograph
from their long-term memory. This could be interfering
with and interrupting the activation and execution of a spe-
cific motor program; in consequence, the average velocity
is compromised throughout the writing performance.
In the case of the time invested in pauses and automatic-
ity, the LD–TD students reported more time invested in
pauses; that is, pauses were shorter for the non-LD–TD
group, allowing an automatic execution of the correct alter-
native allograph grapheme. The difference in the level of
automatic allograph selection suggests that students in
Grade 3 are expected to have already interiorized the 54 dif-
ferent grapheme representations of the alphabet letters in
the Spanish language, achieving not only the proper order
562 Journal of Learning Disabilities 50(5)
of letters from memory but also their alternative symbol
representations.
Limitations
It is important to note that this study was done with Spanish
children writing the alphabet. The use of the selected time
window of 1 min has shown some limitations regarding the
amount of data analyzed to generate the comparisons
between groups and grades. Further studies may be needed
to determine if the findings extend to children with LD
regarding alphabetical systems of other languages.
Conclusion
Our findings provide new evidence for understanding indi-
vidual differences in transcription abilities from a grapho-
nomic approach in the Spanish language. Transcription is a
basic cognitive process in writing that enables the writer to
translate internal language into external written symbols to
express ideas in written language (Berninger, Abbott,
Augsburger, & García, 2009; Richards, Berninger, & Fayol,
2009). Transcription ability, which draws on handwriting
and spelling, has been found to uniquely predict composi-
tion length and quality in developing writers (Berninger,
Cartwright, Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994; Berninger &
Rutberg, 1992; Graham et al., 1997) and is thus not a mere
mechanical skill (Richards et al., 2009). Our findings have
educational implications for educators and researchers
interested in identifying students with LD at an early age.
We suggest that from the single evaluation of graphonomic
indicators in simple writing tasks (i.e., allograph selection
and writing the alphabet in order from memory), education
professionals could obtain a precise view of the grapho-
nomic handwriting profile of students identified at risk for
an LD in writing at the early primary grades. The results of
this investigation thus complement suggestions provided by
Rosenblum, Parush, and Weiss (2003) that “the use of a
computerized handwriting system provides objective tem-
poral measures of handwriting performance, and may lead
to the development of additional tools for the evaluation
and treatment of handwriting difficulties” (p. 129).
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.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research was supported by Agencia Canaria de Investigación,
Innovación y Sociedad de la Información, ref. ProID20100030
from the Government of the Canary Islands.
References
Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (1993). Structural equation model-
ing of relationships among developmental skills and writing
skills in primary and intermediate grade writers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 478–508.
Afonso, O. (2013). Procesamiento fonológico en la escritura
manual de palabras aisladas [Phonological processing in iso-
lated handwritten words] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Universidad de La Laguna, Canary Islands, Spain.
Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C., & Ros, C. (2006). Eye
and Pen: A new device for studying reading during writing.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,
38, 287–299.
Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Chesnet, D., & Fayol, M. (2007). Parallel
processing before and after pauses: A combined analysis of
graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text pro-
duction. In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.),
Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 13–29).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Alamargot, D., & Fayol, M. (2009). Modeling the development
of written composition. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand,
& J. Riley (Eds.), Handbook of writing development (pp. 23–
47). London: Sage.
Amundson, S., & Weil, M. (1996). Prewriting and handwrit-
ing skills. In J. Case-Smith, A. Allen, & P. Pratt (Eds.),
Occupational therapy for children (pp. 524–541). St Louis,
MO: C.V. Mosby.
Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by hand and its
connections to language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in
Language Disorders, 20, 65–84.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Augsburger, A., & García, N. (2009).
Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in
children with and without learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 32, 123–141.
Berninger, V., Cartwright, A., Yates, C., Swanson, H. L., &
Abbott, R. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing
and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades: Shared and
unique variance. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 6, 161–196.
Berninger, V., & Rutberg, J. (1992). Relationship of finger function to
beginning writing: Application to diagnosis of writing disabilities.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 34, 155–172.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Rogan, L.,
Brooks, A., … Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of handwriting
problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to
composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 652–666.
Bonny, A. (1992). Understanding and assessing handwriting dif-
ficulties. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 39, 7–15.
Brooks, A., Vaughan, K., & Berninger, V. (1999). Tutorial inter-
ventions for writing disabilities: Comparison of transcription
and text generation processes. Learning Disability Quarterly,
22, 183–190.
Chang, S., & Yu, N. (2013). Handwriting movement analyses
comparing first and second graders with normal or dysgraphic
characteristics. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34,
2433–2441.
Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J. N., & Fayol, M. (1990). Temporal man-
agement of short text writing by children and adults. Cahiers
de Psychologie Cognitive, 5, 513–540.
Barrientos 563
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, 175–196.
Cornhill, H., & Case-Smith, J. (1996). Factors that relate to good and
poor. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 732–739.
Dansac, C., & Alamargot, D. (1999). Accessing referential infor-
mation during text composition: When, how, and why?
In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to
write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 79–97).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Foulin, J. N. (1995). Pauses et débits: Les indicateurs temporels de
la production écrite [Pauses and debits: Temporal indicators
of writing production]. L’Année Psychologique, 3, 483–504.
Foulin, J. N. (1998). To what extent does pause location predict
pause duration in adults’ and children’s writing? Cahiers de
Psychologie Cognitive, 17, 601–620.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Witaker, D.
(1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary
school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1, 170–182.
Hamstra-Bletz, L., & Blot, A. (1990). Development of handwrit-
ing in primary school: A longitudinal study. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 70, 759–770.
Jiménez, J. E. (2016). Early Grade Writing Assessment (EGWA): An
instrument model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 491–503.
Jiménez, J. E. (in press). Early Grade Writing Assessment (EGWA):
A report and a model instrument. Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Jones, D. (2004). Automaticity of the transcription process in
the production of written text. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Queensland, Australia.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of
comprehension: Individual differences in working memory.
Psychological Review, 1, 122–149.
Kandel, S., Soler, O., Valdois, S., & Gros, C. (2006). Graphemes
as motor units in the acquisition of writing skills. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 313–337.
Lam, S., Au, R., Leung, H., & Li-Tsang, C. (2011). Chinese hand-
writing performance of primary school children with dyslexia.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1745–1756.
Laszlo, J., & Broderick, P. (1991). Drawing and handwriting
difficulties: Reasons for and remediation of dysfunction. In
J. Wann, A. M. Wing, & N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of
graphic skills (pp. 259–280). London: Academic Press.
Maeland, A. F., & Karlsdottir, R. (1991). Development of reading,
spelling and writing skills from third to sixth grade in normal
and dysgraphic school children. In J. Wann, A. M. Wing, &
N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills (pp. 179–184).
London: Academic Press.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working mem-
ory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 299–325.
Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2007). Handwriting: What do we know
and what do we need to know? Literacy, 1, 10–15.
Meulenbroek, R. G., & Van Galen, G. P. (1988). The acquisition
of skilled handwriting: Discontinuous trends in kinematic
variables. In A. M. Cooley & J. R. Beech (Eds.), Cognition
and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 273–281). Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: North Holland.
Mojet, J. (1991). Characteristics of the developing handwriting
skill in elementary education. In J. Wann, A. M. Wing, &
N. Sovik (Eds.), Development of graphic skills (pp. 53–75).
London: Academic Press.
O’Mahony, P., Dempsey, Y. M., & Killeen, H. (2008).
Handwriting speed: Duration of testing period and relation to
socio-economic disadvantage and handedness. Occupational
Therapy International, 15, 165–177.
Peverley, S. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult
writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216.
Reisman, J. E. (1991). Poor handwriting: Who is referred? American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9, 849–852.
Reisman, J. E. (1993). Development and reliability of the research
version of the Minnesota Handwriting Test. Physical and
Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 13, 41–55.
Richards, T., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2009). FMRI activa-
tion differences between 11-year-old good and poor spell-
ers’ access in working memory to temporary and long-term
orthographic representations. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22,
327–353.
Rosenblum, S., Parush, S., & Weiss, P. L. (2003). Computerized
temporal handwriting characteristics of proficient and
non-proficient hand-writers. The American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 2, 129–138.
Rosenblum, S., Weiss, P. L., & Parush, S. (2003). Product and
process evaluation of handwriting difficulties: A review.
Educational Psychology Review, 1, 41–81.
Schilperoord, J. (2002). On the cognitive status of pauses in
discourse production. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.),
Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (Vol.
10, pp. 61–88). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Thomassen, J. W., & Van Galen, G. P. (1992). Handwriting as a
motor task: Experimentation, modelling, and simulation. In J.
J. Summers (Ed.), Approaches to the study of motor control
and learning (pp. 113–144). Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
North Holland.
Tseng, M., & Chow, S. (2000). Perceptual-motor function of
school-age children with slow handwriting speed. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1, 83–88.
Tucha, O., Aschenbrenner, S., Eichhammer, P., Putzhammer, A.,
Sartor, H., Klein, H. E., … Lange, K. W. (2002). The impact
of tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin re-uptake
inhibitors on handwriting movements of patients with depres-
sion. Psychopharmacology, 159, 211–215.
Tucha, O., & Lange, K. W. (2001). Effects of methylphenidate
on kinematic aspects of handwriting in hyperactive boys.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 351–356.
Tucha, O., Tucha, L., & Lange, K. W. (2008). Graphonomics, auto-
maticity and handwriting assessment. Literacy, 3, 145–155.
Van Galen, G. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor
theory. Human Movement Science, 10, 165–192.
Van Galen, G., Portier, S., Smits-Engelsmen, B., & Schomaker, L.
(1993). Neuromotor noise and poor handwriting in children.
Acta Psychologica, 82, 161–178.
Zesiger, P., Mounoud, P., & Hauert, C. (1993). Effects of lexical-
ity and trigram frequency on handwriting production in chil-
dren and adults. Acta Psychologica, 82, 353–365.
Ziviani, J. (1984). Some elaborations on handwriting speed in 7-
to 14-year-olds. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 535–539.