AZ GÖREN VE TİPİK GELİŞİM GÖSTEREN ÇOCUKLAR ARASINDA BİLGİSAYARLI ANALİZDE EL YAZISI BECERİSİ AÇISINDAN FARK VAR MIDIR?

Abstract

Amaç: Çocukların yazma becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi akademik başarıyı etkilediği için büyük önem taşır. Okul çağı az gören çocukların yazma becerilerini değerlendirmek için teknolojik analiz yöntemleri kullanılabilir. Bu vaka kontrol çalışmasının amacı, az gören çocukların bilgisayar programı kullanarak yazma becerilerini analiz etmek ve sonuçlarını normal görmeye sahip tipik gelişim gösteren yaşıtlarıyla karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya okul çağında az gören 18 çocuk ve tipik görsel gelişimi olan 24 çocuk (n=42) katılmıştır. Çocukların her biri 20 kelimelik örnek bir standart cümle yazdı; örnekler daha sonra yazılarının uzamsal ve dinamik özelliklerini tanımlamak için MovAlyzR (Neuroscript LLC, ABD) bilgisayarlı analiz sistemi (versiyon 6.1) kullanılarak analiz edildi. Sonuçlar: Az gören çocukların yaş ortalaması 9,72±2,11, kontrol grubunun yaş ortalaması ise 10±2,02 idi. Harflerin ortalama genişliği, yatay başlangıç, dikey başlangıç ve uzunluk açısından el yazısı örneklerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur, sırasıyla (p=0.000, p= 0.010,p=0.000, p=0.030). Az gören çocuklarda elde edilen sonuçların bu değişkenlerde daha yüksek olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu sonuç, normal görüşe sahip, tipik gelişim gösteren çocuklar lehinedir. Tartışma: Sonuçlar, az gören okul çağı çocuklarının tipik görmeye sahip akranlarına göre daha büyük boyutlu harfler yazdıklarını göstermiştir. Bunun nedeni, el yazısı harflerinin uzamsal boyutlarını ayırt etme güçlüğü veya az gören çocuklarda görme keskinliğinin azalması olabilir.

Keywords

• Çocuk
• Az Görme
• Görev Performansı ve Analizi
• El Yazısı

IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN COMPUTERIZED ANALYSIS OF HANDWRITING SKILLS BETWEEN CHILDREN WITH LOW AND TYPICAL VISION?

Abstract

Purpose: It is of great importance to evaluate children’s writing skills, as this ability affects their academic achievement. Technological analysis methods can now be used to evaluate the writing skills of school-age children with low vision. The aim of this case-control study is to analyse the writing skills of children with low vision using a computerized program and to compare their results with those of their typically developing peers with normal vision. Methods: Eighteen school-age children with low vision and 24 children with typical visual development (n=42) participated in the present study. Each of the children wrote a 20-word sample standard sentence; the samples were then analysed using the MovAlyzR (Neuroscript LLC, USA) computerized analysis system (version 6.1) to describe the spatial and dynamic characteristics of their writing. Results: The mean age of the children with low vision were 9.72±2.11 years and the control group were 10±2.02 years. Statistically significant differences were found in the handwriting samples in terms of the average width of the letters, horizontal start, vertical start and length, respectively (p=0.000, p= 0.010, p=0.000, p=0.030). It was found that the results obtained in children with low vision were higher in these variables. This result is in favor of typically developing children with normal vision. Conclusion: The results indicated that the school-age children with low vision wrote letters of larger dimensions than their peers with typical vision. This may be due to the difficulty of discerning the spatial dimensions of handwritten letters or because of the diminished visual acuity in children with low vision.

Keywords

• Child
• Low vision
• Performance and Analysis
• Task Handwriting

References

1. Kushki A, Chau T, Anagnostou E. Handwriting difficulties in children with autism spectrum disorders: A scoping review. J Autism Dev Disord. 2011;41(12):1706-1716.
2. Graham S, Berninger V, Weintraub N, Schafer W. Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1–9. J Educ Res. 1998;92(1):42-52.
3. Atasavun Uysal S, Aki E. Relationship between writing skills and visual-motor control in low-vision students. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;115(1):111-119.
4. Atasavun Uysal S, Düger T. Writing and reading training effects on font type and size preferences by students with low vision. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;114(3):837-846.
5. Russel E, Nagaishi PS. Services for children with visual or auditory impairments. 5 ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2005.
6. Warren M, Lampert J. Assessing daily living needs. Opthalmol Monographs. 1999;12:89-106.
7. Negiloni K, Krishna Kumar Ramani RJ, Kalva J, Sudhir RR. Are children with low vision adapted to the visual environment in classrooms of mainstream schools? Indian J Opthalmol. 2018;66(2):285-289.
8. Aki E, Atasavun Uysal S, Kayihan H. Relationship between upper extremity kinesthetic sense and writing performance by students with low vision. Percept Mot Skills. 2008;106(3):963-966.

9. Giammarco E, Di Sano S, Aureli T, Cerratti P, Fanò-Illic G, Pietrangelo T. Psychological and Physiological Processes in Figure-Tracing Abilities Measured Using a Tablet Computer: A Study with 7 and 9 Years Old Children. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1528.
10. Güven Z. Atasavun Uysal S. Kinematic analysis of handwriting movements and pencil grip patterns in children with low vision. Hum Mov Sci. 2022; 81: 102907.
11. Jebsen RH, Taylor NEAL, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50(6):311-319.
12. Dean DJ, Teulings HL, Caligiuri M, Mittal VA. Handwriting analysis indicates spontaneous dyskinesias in neuroleptic naive adolescents at high risk for psychosis. JoVE 2013;81:e50852.
13. Amend, KK, Ruiz MS. Handwriting analysis. The complete basic book: Red Wheel/Weiser; 2000.
14. Rosenblum S, Weiss PL, Parush S. Product and process evaluation of handwriting difficulties. Educ Psychol Rev. 2003;15(1):41-81.
15. Alamargot D, Morin MF. Does handwriting on a tablet screen affect students’ graphomotor execution? A comparison between grades two and nine. Hum Mov Sci. 2015;44:32-41.
16. Falk TH, Tam C, Schellnus H, Chau T. On the development of a computer-based handwriting assessment tool to objectively quantify handwriting proficiency in children. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2011;104(3):e102-e111.
17. Summers J, Catarro F. Assessment of handwriting speed and factors influencing written output of university students in examinations. Aust Occup Ther J. 2003;50(3):148-157.
18. Van Drempt N, McCluskey A, Lannin NA. Handwriting in healthy people aged 65 years and over. Aust Occup Ther J. 2011;58(4):276-286.
19. Guilbert J, Alamargot D, Morin, MF. Handwriting on a tablet screen: Role of visual and proprioceptive feedback in the control of movement by children and adults. Hum Mov Sci. 2019;65:30-41.