The concurrent validity and reliability of the Prewriting Assessment.
Saved in:
| Title: | The concurrent validity and reliability of the Prewriting Assessment. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Johnston, Berenice (AUTHOR), Levay, Zoe (AUTHOR), Ryan, Brooke (AUTHOR), Hatfield, Megan (AUTHOR), Calder, Samuel D. (AUTHOR), Claessen, Mary (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. Dec2025, Vol. 72 Issue 6, p1-12. 12p. |
| Subjects: | Cross-sectional method, Pearson correlation (Statistics), Handwriting, Psychology of teachers, Cronbach's alpha, Data analysis, Research evaluation, Research methodology evaluation, Schools, Statistical sampling, Educational tests & measurements, Descriptive statistics, Occupational therapy, Pre-tests & post-tests, Psychometrics, Research methodology, Child development, Statistics, Inter-observer reliability |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Handwriting is a skill required for successful classroom engagement, with mastery of prewriting patterns a key stage of its early development. Currently, there are limited tools evaluating prewriting ability. The Prewriting Assessment is one tool clinicians can use, which involves children copying eight pictures constructed from prewriting patterns. This study aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the Prewriting Assessment. Methods: A cross‐sectional research design was used, involving 54 typically developing 4‐ to 5‐year‐olds enrolled in Western Australian kindergartens. Participants were assessed using the Prewriting Assessment and Developmental Test of Visual Perception (Third Edition) Visual Motor Integration subtests. To determine test–retest reliability, 21 of the 54 participants were retested 2–4 weeks later. To determine intra‐rater reliability, 20 samples were rescored by the same assessor, and to determine inter‐rater reliability, 20 samples were rescored by a different assessor. Analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficients, Intraclass correlation coefficients, and Cronbach's alpha. Consumer and Community Involvement: Teachers and occupational therapists working with 4‐ to 5‐year‐old children expressed a need for a prewriting assessment and provided feedback on the Prewriting Assessment design. Findings: Criterion validity (concurrent) was demonstrated through moderate to strong correlations between total Prewriting Assessment scores and the Developmental Test of Visual Perception (Third Edition) visual motor integration sum of scaled scores (r(52) = 0.58), copying raw and scaled scores (r(52) = 0.61, and r(52) = 0.55). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the Prewriting Assessment total scores were strongly correlated (0.82 test re‐test, 0.92 inter‐rater, and 0.97 intra‐rater reliability) (p < 0.001). Internal consistency between items on the Prewriting Assessment ranged between moderate and excellent (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84–0.96). Conclusions: The PWA has established reliability and concurrent criterion validity when used with children aged 4–5 years, allowing occupational therapists and teachers to evaluate a child's prewriting ability. Further research could investigate the predictive validity of the Prewriting Assessment. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Prewriting refers to the shapes we learn before we learn to write letters. Occupational therapists need to check these skills in children, but there are not many tests that can do this. The Prewriting Assessment was made and tested with 54 four‐ to five‐year‐old children. A test was also used to check how children use their hands and eyes at the same time. This showed the Prewriting Assessment tests the skills we wanted to check. It showed that if someone else used the test, they still got close to the same results. This new tool helps occupational therapists check prewriting in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Australian Occupational Therapy Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
Be the first to leave a comment!
