is handwriting without tears research based

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Occup Ther

Curriculum-Based Handwriting Programs: A Systematic Review With Effect Sizes

Courtney engel.

Courtney Engel, MOT, OTR, is Occupational Therapist, Chicago, IL. At the time of the research, she was Master’s Student, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Kristin Lillie

Kristin Lillie, MOT, OTR, is Occupational Therapist, Milwaukee, WI. At the time of the research, she was Master’s Student, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Sarah Zurawski

Sarah Zurawski, MSE, OTR/L, is Lecturer, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Brittany G. Travers

Brittany G. Travers, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Assistant Professor, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison; ude.csiw@srevartb

Associated Data

A systematic review of evidence for the effectiveness of curriculum-based handwriting interventions (preschool to second grade) found evidence for improvements in handwriting legibility but not in speed or fluency.

Challenges with handwriting can have a negative impact on academic performance, and these challenges are commonly addressed by occupational therapy practitioners in school settings. This systematic review examined the efficacy of curriculum-based interventions to address children’s handwriting difficulties in the classroom (preschool to second grade). We reviewed and computed effect sizes for 13 studies (11 Level II, 2 Level III) identified through a comprehensive database search. The evidence shows that curriculum-based handwriting interventions resulted in small- to medium-sized improvements in legibility, a commonly reported challenge in this age group. The evidence for whether these interventions improved speed is mixed, and the evidence for whether they improved fluency is insufficient. No clear support was found for one handwriting program over another. These results suggest that curriculum-based interventions can lead to improvements in handwriting legibility, but Level I research is needed to validate the efficacy of these curricula.

Handwriting difficulties are observed in 10%–30% of school-age children with and without identified disabilities ( Feder & Majnemer, 2007 ). Children experiencing handwriting impairments tend to have lower achievement in mathematics, lower verbal IQ, and greater attention difficulties than their peers without impairments ( Sandler et al., 1992 ), resulting in decreased ability to interact and engage in classroom settings. Poor handwriting can also lead to limited compositional fluency ( Graham, Berninger, Weintraub, & Schafer, 1998 ), issues with taking legible notes and reading them later, and more time needed to finish assignments ( Graham, 1992 ). Moreover, handwriting impairments have been linked to reduced working memory capacity and lower reading and spelling scores ( McCarney, Peters, Jackson, Thomas, & Kirby, 2013 ), suggesting that handwriting challenges early in life may have cascading negative effects on learning and academic performance.

To address handwriting difficulties, several curriculum-based handwriting programs have been developed. These programs are taught within the classroom setting and are geared toward improving handwriting in all children, not just those exhibiting difficulties. Occupational therapy practitioners in the schools often facilitate these interventions; handwriting deficiencies are one of the primary causes for referral to occupational therapy among school-age children ( Barnes, Beck, Vogel, Grice, & Murphy, 2003 ).

Handwriting Without Tears (HWT; Olsen & Knapton, 2008 ), a developmentally and multisensory-based handwriting curriculum, can be implemented in the classroom by both teachers and occupational therapy practitioners. The Write Start program ( Case-Smith, Holland, & Bishop, 2011 ; Case-Smith, Holland, Lane, & White, 2012 ), another cotaught classroom-embedded intervention, is aimed at promoting writing fluency in grade school children of all ability levels. These and other curriculum-based programs (see Table 1 ) target handwriting performance in children’s classroom setting. The curriculum-based approach aligns with the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-95) , a reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110) , which allows schools to address the needs of all students but particularly focuses on children who are not meeting academic standards. Aligning handwriting interventions with classroom curricula is thought to promote greater generalization of skills to handwriting-based activities within the classroom.

Handwriting Curriculum-Based Interventions Examined in the Reviewed Studies

Despite the availability of curriculum-based programs, little research has been conducted on the efficacy of these interventions in improving handwriting performance. A previous systematic review found that handwriting interventions (a blend of both curriculum-based and non–curriculum-based programs) were effective when they provided sufficient time for handwriting practice ( Hoy, Egan, & Feder, 2011 ). However, this review did not specifically evaluate curriculum-based handwriting interventions, and the majority of the literature on curriculum-based programs has been published since the review.

Therefore, the objective of the current study was to systematically review the efficacy of curriculum-based handwriting programs in improving handwriting in classroom activities for children with and without identified disabilities. Combining our systematic review with effect size calculations from each study, we specifically aimed to examine (1) whether curriculum-based handwriting interventions in general made meaningful changes to children’s handwriting legibility, speed, and fluency; (2) whether specific curricula rendered the largest treatment effects; and (3) whether specific characteristics of curricula (e.g., age at intervention, length of intervention) led to more substantial treatment effects.

Search Strategy

We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify curriculum-based handwriting interventions for children. The previous systematic review of handwriting interventions covered December 1978 to January 2010 ( Hoy et al., 2011 ). The current review included studies of curriculum-based handwriting interventions published from January 2006 to December 2015. Figure 1 shows the number of studies identified, screened, eligible for, and included in the systematic review. With the help of a medical librarian, our team systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EBSCOhost (including Academic Search Premier), CINAHL Plus With Full Text, Education Full Text, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Full Text, SocINDEX with full text, and OTseeker. For PubMed, key terms included child * and handwrit * and (intervention or therapy or program). For EBSCOhost, terms included child * (and handwrit * intervention or handwrit * program). For OTseeker, the broad term “handwriting” was used to encompass a wide range of articles. The searches were further narrowed by the use of filters, including peer-reviewed journal articles, publication within the past 10 yr, and clinical trials.

Flow diagram of articles identified, screened, eligible for, and included in the systematic review.

Figure format from “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement,” by D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman; PRISMA Group, 2009, PLoS Medicine, 6 (6), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

The search terms were developed to capture relevant articles and to ensure that the terms relevant to the specific thesaurus of each database were included. Additionally, the American Journal of Occupational Therapy was hand searched to ensure that all appropriate articles were included.

Selection Criteria

Articles selected for review included those that had used handwriting interventions and curriculum-based programs for children in preschool through fifth grade. We chose to exclude articles addressing children above the fifth-grade level to focus on the years when children typically learn handwriting fundamentals. We included studies of curriculum-based handwriting programs used for children both with and without identified disabilities, who together form the target population of these interventions. Other inclusion criteria were interventions that took place in a general education classroom, interventions longer than one session, and interventions with a clear beginning and end. Specific exclusion criteria were studies with adult participants, interventions implemented outside the classroom setting, and studies that lacked a distinguishable intervention. The studies used in our review were assessed for outcomes related to overall handwriting performance, such as legibility, writing speed, and fluency.

Effect Size Computations

Using the reported means and standard deviations published in each study, we calculated Hedge’s g using the compute.es package ( Del Re, 2013 ) in R ( R Core Team, 2015 ). Hedge’s g is an effect size measure that permits comparison of the size of the intervention effect across studies and measures. A Hedge’s g of 0.20 is considered a small effect, 0.50 is considered a medium effect, and 0.80 or greater is considered a large effect. Compared with Cohen’s d, Hedge’s g may provide a better estimate of effect size in small samples ( Grissom & Kim, 2005 ). In the case of repeated measures analyses, we followed the recommendations of Morris (2008) by calculating Hedge’s g for the pre–post change in each group and then subtracting the Hedge’s g for the control group from the Hedge’s g for the treatment group. Because this procedure did not account for repeated measures, it may have led to decreased estimates of effect sizes for these analyses. Positive effect sizes represent the size of effect in the expected direction (i.e., faster, more fluent, or more legible handwriting), whereas negative effect sizes represent the size of the effect in the unexpected direction (i.e., slower, less fluent, and less legible handwriting).

From the original search, we identified 252 studies matching our search terms. Of these studies, 99 were excluded because the titles did not include handwriting or children in preschool through fifth grade. Abstracts of the remaining 153 were screened, and 121 were excluded because of the absence of an explicit handwriting intervention or program (see Figure 1 ).

Supplemental Table 1 (available online at http://otjournal.net ; navigate to this article, and click on “Supplemental”) summarizes the 13 included studies. Levels of evidence were assigned on the basis of AOTA guidelines ( Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996 ). There were 0 Level I studies, 10 Level II studies, 2 Level III studies, and 1 study we classified as Level II–III because it had two distinct intervention groups but no control. Several curricula were examined by the 13 studies, including Write Start ( Case-Smith, Holland, & Bishop, 2011 ), HWT ( Olsen, 2003 ; Olsen & Knapton, 2008 ), HWT–Get Set for School ( Olsen & Knapton, 2008 ), Peterson Directed Handwriting Curriculum ( Nelson, 2006 ), the Fine Motor and Early Writing Pre-K curriculum, the Size Matters Handwriting Program (SMHP; Moskowitz, 2009 ), Write Direction ( Taras, Brennan, Gilbert, & Eck Reed, 2011 ), and Handwriting Clubs ( Howe, Roston, Sheu, & Hinojosa, 2013 ). Table 1 presents a brief description of each curriculum.

Risk of Bias

Because the studies under review were nonrandomized, we assessed risk of bias according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009 ) guidelines using ROBINS–I ( Sterne et al., 2016 ). As seen in Supplemental Table 2 (available online), the majority of studies had low risk of bias across domains.

Effects of Level II Versus Level III Studies

Because Level III studies, by definition, do not have a control group, pre–post treatment effect sizes may be overestimated because they likely reflect not only improvements from the intervention but also maturation effects and benefits from completing the same or a similar measure twice. To examine whether the difference in effect sizes between the 10 Level II studies and the 3 Level III studies (including the Level II–III study) was robust, we contrasted the average effect sizes of the analyses. Level II studies had an average effect size of 0.32 (small to medium effect; range = −0.90 to 1.96), whereas Level III studies had an average effect size of 2.69 (very large effect; range = −0.19 to 9.98). The Level III effect sizes were on average eight times larger than the Level II effect sizes, suggesting that maturation effects play a large role in curriculum-based handwriting intervention research. Because of this large discrepancy, we report findings from all studies but effect sizes of only the Level II studies.

Effects of Curriculum-Based Handwriting Interventions

Handwriting legibility..

Handwriting legibility was measured as an outcome in 12 of the 13 studies. Quality was considered a proxy for handwriting legibility. Because letter formation is a main component of legibility ( Hammerschmidt & Sudsawad, 2004 ), letter formation was interpreted as legibility. Eight studies showed significant improvements in at least one component of legibility. Therefore, moderate evidence exists for improved handwriting legibility after curriculum-based handwriting programs. The reviewed interventions had an average effect size of 0.39 (range = 0.02 to 1.05), suggesting small to medium effects on legibility.

Handwriting Speed.

Nine of the 13 studies assessed handwriting speed or rate. Five of these studies found significant improvements in speed. However, 3 studies found no difference in speed, and Pfeiffer, Rai, Murray, and Brusilovskiy (2015) found that the intervention group became significantly slower after training than the control group. Therefore, the evidence is mixed regarding whether curriculum-based interventions enhance handwriting speed. The reviewed interventions had an average (mean) effect size on speed of 0.13 (range = −0.90 to 0.77). Because of the large range, we also calculated the median (0.22). Therefore, the intervention effects on handwriting speed were variable and, when averaged, were small to very small.

Handwriting Fluency.

Only 4 of the 13 studies assessed fluency, and all 4 investigated the Write Start program. Only 3 of these studies found significant differences in fluency at posttest. Because of the similarity of the studies and some inconsistencies in posttests, the evidence is insufficient for curriculum-based handwriting programs to improve fluency. Given the discrepancy in effect sizes of the 2 Level II studies that assessed fluency (range = −0.08 to 0.74), we did not calculate an average effect size.

Effects of Specific Curricula

We compared effect sizes for legibility and speed across the different curricula (see Figure 2 ). For legibility, an explicit handwriting program ( Kaiser, Albaret, & Doudin, 2011 ) had the largest effect size, but this study was the only one to use this intervention. SMHP ( Pfeiffer et al., 2015 ) and Write Start ( Case-Smith, Holland, & White, 2014 ; Case-Smith, Weaver, & Holland, 2014 ) on average had medium to large effects on legibility. The Fine Motor and Early Writing Pre-K Curriculum ( Donica, Goins, & Wagner, 2013 ), HWT ( Donica, 2015 ; Donica et al., 2013 ; Lust & Donica, 2011 ; Roberts, Derkach-Ferguson, Siever, & Rose, 2014 ; Salls, Benson, Hansen, Cole, & Pielielek, 2013 ), Write Direction ( Taras, Brennan, Gilbert, & Eck Reed, 2011 ), and intensive handwriting practice ( Howe, Roston, Sheu, & Hinojosa, 2013 ) all had small or very small effects on legibility. However, many of these studies used active and rigorous control conditions, which might have diminished the size of these effects.

Effect sizes (Hedge’s g ) for legibility and speed, by curriculum.

Note. Effect sizes are interpreted as follows: 0.20 = small effect, 0.50 = medium effect, 0.80 = large effect. Negative effect sizes reflect intervention changes in the opposite-than-expected direction (i.e., slower handwriting after the intervention). HWT = Handwriting Without Tears; HWT–GSS = Handwriting Without Tears–Get Set for School; Pre-K = prekindergarten; VPM = visual–perceptual–motor training.

For speed, the explicit handwriting program ( Kaiser et al., 2011 ) had the largest effect size. Write Start ( Case-Smith et al., 2011 , 2012 ; Case-Smith, Holland, & White, 2014 ; Case-Smith, Weaver, & Holland, 2014 ) and intensive handwriting practice ( Howe et al., 2013 ) had small to medium effect sizes. Intriguingly, SMHP ( Pfeiffer et al., 2015 ) had a small to medium effect size but in the opposite direction, suggesting that this curriculum significantly enhanced legibility while promoting slower writing.

Effects of Specific Characteristics of Curricula

Age at instruction..

Effect sizes for legibility (17 effect sizes) and speed (8 effect sizes) were examined as a function of the grade at which the intervention took place (interventions that took place in Grades 1 and 2 were coded as 1.5). Legibility effects showed a medium-sized but not significant correlation with age at instruction, r = .33, p = .25. Speed effects did not vary according to age at instruction, r = −.06, p = .89.

Instruction Length.

The length of intervention varied across studies; however, all interventions lasted a minimum of 6 wk. The majority of handwriting programs lasted ≥12 wk and yielded handwriting improvements in at least one of the specified outcome areas. Given the variability in session time and frequency across interventions, we calculated an estimate of the total number of hours of intervention for each of the studies. Total hours of intervention ranged from 6 hr ( Donica et al., 2013 ) to 90 hr ( Donica, 2015 ), with the latter occurring over a 2-yr time span. Omitting the 90-hr intervention outlier, total intervention hours were not correlated with the effect sizes for legibility, r = .27, p = .37, or speed, r = −.11, p = .79.

This systematic review aimed to examine the evidence for curriculum-based handwriting interventions to improve handwriting legibility, speed, and fluency. From our extensive literature search, 13 curriculum-based handwriting studies met inclusion criteria for review (10 Level II studies and 3 Level III studies). Conspicuously, there were no randomized controlled trials (Level I evidence). Our systematic review rendered two major findings: (1) Curriculum-based handwriting interventions in general demonstrated small to medium effects in improving legibility, and (2) although certain programs may be better suited for targeting speed versus legibility, other characteristics of the programs (i.e., age at intervention and hours of intervention) did not appear to influence efficacy.

Efficacy of Curriculum-Based Handwriting Interventions

The findings suggest that curriculum-based handwriting interventions can successfully elicit small- to medium-sized improvements in legibility. Although the size of these effects was not large, even small gains in legibility may be important because poor handwriting legibility can greatly compromise a child’s functioning in school and lead to lower grades ( Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000 ; Schneck & Amundson, 2010 ). These effect sizes may have been smaller than expected because many of the reviewed studies implemented active control groups (handwriting was taught, but in a different way) rather than passive control groups. Using an active control group is more rigorous but may result in underestimation of the size of the intervention effect.

In contrast, curriculum-based interventions did not appear to enhance handwriting speed. Speed effect sizes varied greatly, and the average speed effect size was small. One possible explanation is that when legibility and form are emphasized in a curriculum, slower handwriting production may result. Indeed, several studies demonstrated that when legibility improved, speed declined or showed no improvement ( Howe et al., 2013 ; Roberts, Siever, & Mair, 2010 ; Weintraub & Graham, 1998 ). Another possible explanation is that improvements in letter quality may be observed before improvements in speed because of the additional practice time needed for speed to develop ( Hoy et al., 2011 ). Consequently, speed effects may not be as evident in studies that focus on young learners.

Writing fluency was a variable of interest because the end goal of efficient handwriting is to allow children to focus on higher order aspects of writing. However, not enough studies measured fluency to be able to draw conclusions. This is a critical gap in the literature and a key avenue for future research because writing fluency likely reflects the more functional aspects of handwriting ability.

Program Characteristics That Demonstrated the Highest Efficacy

We calculated effect sizes for all studies in the systematic review to supplement our interpretation of the literature. This allowed us not only to estimate effect sizes across the whole body of evidence but also to compare effects across different curricula, ages, and lengths of intervention.

An important question has been whether one type of curriculum-based handwriting intervention outperforms the others. In other words, does it matter which curriculum a school uses? From our comparison of effect sizes, no one handwriting program appeared to outperform the other programs across all domains. Intriguingly, the Write Start program and the explicit handwriting program from Kaiser et al. (2011) were the only programs to have non–small effects on both legibility and speed. However, other programs had medium to large effect sizes in each of those domains (just not consistently across domains). Therefore, different programs may excel at targeting different outcomes.

In an ideal situation, the needs of the children in the classroom would dictate which curriculum is used. For example, our results suggest that SMHP may be best for classrooms for which the primary goal is legibility but not speed. Alternatively, for classrooms for which the primary goal is handwriting speed, the explicit handwriting program from Kaiser et al. (2011) , Write Start, or the intensive handwriting program from Howe et al. (2013) might be best suited.

We also used the effect sizes to examine the ideal length of intervention, and we found that more intervention hours did not appear to lead to substantially larger handwriting improvements. This finding suggests that 6 wk of intervention may be sufficient, even though a previous review of curriculum-based and non-curriculum-based handwriting interventions suggested that handwriting interventions should occur at least two times per week for a minimum of 20 sessions to be effective ( Hoy et al., 2011 ).

Interestingly, we found that the grade at which the intervention occurred had a nonsignificant but medium to large relation to how big the intervention-based legibility effects were, which suggests a trend for older grades to be associated with larger effects. Although this association was not statistically significant and should be interpreted with extreme caution, the size of the effects for different ages and grades might be useful in designing future research.

Limitations

A limitation of this review is that no Level I studies met inclusion criteria, restricting our ability to draw firm conclusions on the efficacy of curriculum-based handwriting interventions. The lack of Level I studies may be attributable to the fact that curriculum-based interventions, by definition, take place in the classroom, preventing random assignment of students to one condition or another. However, a large-scale study that randomly assigns different classrooms to the intervention or control condition would provide higher levels of evidence in support of curriculum-based interventions.

Another limitation is that our calculation of effect sizes did not account for repeated measures, which may have led to decreased estimates of effect sizes. We chose this as a conservative approach, but some of the effects may be underestimated. Other limitations include inconsistency in definitions of handwriting components (e.g., legibility), limited descriptions of participants, and lack of long-term follow-up in the studies reviewed.

Implications for Occupational Therapy Practice

The results of this study have the following implications for occupational therapy practice:

• Curriculum-based handwriting programs, in general, appear to successfully target legibility in preschool, kindergarten, and young school-age children.
• Specific curriculum-based handwriting programs may be better at targeting speed than legibility (or vice versa) and ideally should be selected on the basis of whether the primary need of the classroom is handwriting speed or legibility.
• For the majority of children, 6 wk (∼15 hr) was enough to make gains in legibility. However, children with handwriting challenges may need more time. Future research is needed to determine the ideal length of curriculum-based handwriting programs.
• A key need exists for future Level I research to examine curriculum-based handwriting.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental material, acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant U54 HD090256 to the Waisman Center), the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD Young Investigator Award to B.G.T.), and the Hartwell Foundation (to B.G.T.). We thank Karla Ausderau and Lauren Bishop-Fitzpatrick for their insights and help with this systematic review. We also thank Michael Venner for his expertise and assistance with our database search.

* Indicates articles included in the systematic review.

Contributor Information

Courtney Engel, Courtney Engel, MOT, OTR, is Occupational Therapist, Chicago, IL. At the time of the research, she was Master’s Student, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Kristin Lillie, Kristin Lillie, MOT, OTR, is Occupational Therapist, Milwaukee, WI. At the time of the research, she was Master’s Student, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Sarah Zurawski, Sarah Zurawski, MSE, OTR/L, is Lecturer, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Brittany G. Travers, Brittany G. Travers, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Occupational Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Assistant Professor, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison; ude.csiw@srevartb .

• Barnes K. J., Beck A. J., Vogel K. A., Grice K. O., & Murphy D. (2003). Perceptions regarding school-based occupational therapy for children with emotional disturbances . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 57 , 337–341. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.3.337 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Case-Smith J., Holland T., & Bishop B. (2011). Effectiveness of an integrated handwriting program for first-grade students: A pilot study . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 65 , 670–678. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2011.000984 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Case-Smith J., Holland T., Lane A., & White S. (2012). Effect of a coteaching handwriting program for first graders: One-group pretest–posttest design . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 66 , 396–405. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004333 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Case-Smith J., Holland T., & White S. (2014). Effectiveness of a co-taught handwriting program for first grade students . Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics , 34 , 30–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2013.783898 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Case-Smith J., Weaver L., & Holland T. (2014). Effects of a classroom-embedded occupational therapist–teacher handwriting program for first-grade students . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 68 , 690–698. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.011585 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Del Re A. C. (2013). compute.es: Compute effect sizes [Computer software] . Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es
• *Donica D. K. (2015). Handwriting Without Tears ® : General education effectiveness through a consultative approach . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 69 , 6906180050 https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.018366 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Donica D. K., Goins A., & Wagner L. (2013). Effectiveness of handwriting readiness programs on postural control, hand control, and letter and number formation in Head Start classrooms . Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools & Early Intervention , 6 , 81–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2013.810938 [ Google Scholar ]
• Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-95.
• Feder K. P., & Majnemer A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention . Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology , 49 , 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00312.x [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S. (1992). Issues in handwriting instruction . Focus on Exceptional Children , 25 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S., Berninger V., Weintraub N., & Schafer W. (1998). Development of handwriting speed and legibility in Grades 1–9 . Journal of Educational Research , 92 , 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597574 [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S., Harris K., & Fink B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers . Journal of Educational Psychology , 92 , 620–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.620 [ Google Scholar ]
• Grissom R. J., & Kim J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammerschmidt S. L., & Sudsawad P. (2004). Teachers’ survey on problems with handwriting: Referral, evaluation, and outcomes . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 58 , 185–192. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.58.2.185 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Howe T. H., Roston K. L., Sheu C. F., & Hinojosa J. (2013). Assessing handwriting intervention effectiveness in elementary school students: A two-group controlled study . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 67 , 19–26. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2013.005470 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoy M. M. P., Egan M. Y., & Feder K. P. (2011). A systematic review of interventions to improve handwriting . Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy , 78 , 13–25. https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2011.78.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Kaiser M. L., Albaret J. M., & Doudin P. A. (2011). Efficacy of an explicit handwriting program . Perceptual and Motor Skills , 112 , 610–618. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.25.PMS.112.2.610-618 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Lust C. A., & Donica D. K. (2011). Effectiveness of a handwriting readiness program in Head Start: A two-group controlled trial . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 65 , 560–568. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2011.000612 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarney D., Peters L., Jackson S., Thomas M., & Kirby A. (2013). Does poor handwriting conceal literacy potential in primary school children ? International Journal of Disability Development and Education , 60 , 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2013.786561 [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., & Altman D. G.; PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement . PLoS Medicine , 6 ( 6 ), e1000097 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest–posttest–control group designs . Organizational Research Methods , 11 , 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059 [ Google Scholar ]
• Moskowitz B. H. (2009). Handwriting club (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nelson R. H. (2006). The Peterson Method: A research-based strategy for teaching and learning motor skills for written language . Retrieved from http://www.peterson-handwriting.com/ServicePage/PdhStrategy.pdf
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301–8962.
• Olsen J. Z. (2003). Handwriting without tears . Potomac, MD: Handwriting Without Tears. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olsen J., & Knapton E. (2008). Handwriting Without Tears (3rd ed.). Cabin John, MD: Western Psychological Services. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Pfeiffer B., Rai G., Murray T., & Brusilovskiy E. (2015). Effectiveness of the Size Matters Handwriting Program . OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health , 35 , 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449215573004 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/ [ Google Scholar ]
• *Roberts G. I., Derkach-Ferguson A. F., Siever J. E., & Rose M. S. (2014). An examination of the effectiveness of Handwriting Without Tears ® instruction . Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy , 81 , 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417414527065 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts G. I., Siever J. E., & Mair J. A. (2010). Effects of a kinesthetic cursive handwriting intervention for Grade 4–6 students . American Journal of Occupational Therapy , 64 , 745–755. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2010.08128 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sackett D. L., Rosenberg W. M. C., Muir Gray J. A., Haynes R. B., & Richardson W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t . BMJ , 312 , 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Salls J., Benson J. D., Hansen M. A., Cole K., & Pielielek A. (2013). A comparison of the Handwriting Without Tears program and Peterson Directed Handwriting program on handwriting performance in typically developing first grade students. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, and Early Intervention , 6 , 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2013.810958 [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler A. D., Watson T. E., Footo M., Levine M. D., Coleman W. L., & Hooper S. R. (1992). Neurodevelopmental study of writing disorders in middle childhood . Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics , 13 , 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-199202000-00005 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneck C., & Amundson S. (2010). Prewriting and handwriting skills . In Case-Smith J. & O’Brien J. (Eds.), Occupational therapy for children (6th ed., pp. 555–580). Maryland Heights, MO: Mosby/Elsevier. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sterne J. A., Hernán M. A., Reeves B. C., Savović J., Berkman N. D., Viswanathan M., et al.Higgins J. P. (2016). ROBINS–I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions . BMJ , 355 , i4919 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Taras H., Brennan J., Gilbert A., & Eck Reed H. (2011). Effectiveness of occupational therapy strategies for teaching handwriting skills to kindergarten children. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, and Early Intervention , 4 , 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2011.629554 [ Google Scholar ]
• Weintraub N., & Graham S. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A study of children’s ability to adjust their handwriting to meet common classroom demands . Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 13 , 146–152. [ Google Scholar ]

• Portal Login

Handwriting Without Tears®

Curriculum-Based Handwriting Programs – What Does the Research Say?

The American Journal Of Occupational Therapy recently published a systemic review of curriculum-based handwriting programs for students in preschool through second grade.  Challenges with handwriting in school can have a negative impact on academic performance, Occupational therapy practitioners frequently help students improve handwriting legibility, speed, and fluency.

After reviewing 13 studies, the researchers identified the following:

• curriculum-based handwriting interventions resulted in small- to medium-sized improvements in legibility.
• mixed evidence for improvements in handwriting speed.
• insufficient evidence for improved fluency.
• after review of 9 handwriting curriculums, no clear support was found for one handwriting program over another.
• 6 wk of intervention (about 15 hours) may be sufficient to improve legibility.

Certain handwriting programs provided greater benefits with regards to legibility or speed.  For example,  the Size Matters Handwriting Program may be the best choice for classrooms for which the primary goal is legibility but not speed.   If the primary goal is handwriting speed, the research indicated that the explicit handwriting program (from Kaiser et. al), Write Start, or the intensive handwriting program from (Howe et al.) might be the best choice.

The researchers recommended that Level I research is needed to validate the efficacy of these curricula.

Reference:  Engel, C., Lillie, K., Zurawski, S., & Travers, B. G. (2018). Curriculum-Based Handwriting Programs: A Systematic Review With Effect Sizes. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(3), 7203205010p1-7203205010p8.

Read more about another Occupational Therapy Handwriting Study here.

This  Handwriting Bundle  for PreK-5th Graders is created by school-based Occupational Therapist, Thia Triggs of Print Path. This Handwriting Without Tears© -style letter font, uses 3-lines to best support your students. There are Go-Dots, Gray-Boxes, and Simple Arrows that inform rather than confuse learners. Best practices include research-based methods incorporating application of developmental and motor learning theories to benefit your struggling learners.  Get 10 of the best handwriting instruction downloads for your multi-leveled interventions! FIND OUT MORE .

Your Therapy Source

Email: [email protected] Phone: (800) 507-4958 Fax: (518) 308-0290

Occupational Therapy Tools & Insights

Pros and Cons Spotlight: Using Handwriting Without Tears to Teach Printing

What a wonderful spotlight on Handwriting. Thank you for sharing and the advice.

I've never heard of it. I'll have to look into it.

Thank you for this helpful advice.

Comments are closed.

A–Z for Mat Man® and Me - Now Accepting Orders!

• Contact Sales

Site Search

Handwriting without tears, from emergent writing in pre-k to cursive mastery in fifth grade, handwriting without tears helps students develop a fluency for writing success, no matter where they learn., building the foundation of literacy.

Handwriting Without Tears helps students build essential skills for emergent writing and handwriting success.

Children who master handwriting are more likely to succeed in school, writing with speed and ease in all subjects. But without a strong foundation, bad habits take root. Our unparalleled curriculum nurtures writing automaticity through direct, explicit instruction along with guided and independent practice.

Download brochure

Direct Instruction Builds Handwriting Automaticity

Handwriting Without Tears' pedagogy guides students to success with:

• Developmentally appropriate sequence of instruction
• Consistent guided practice to develop automaticity and fluency
• Multisensory components engage visual, audio, and kinesthetic learners
• Hands-on manipulatives for developing fine motor and phonics skills
• Simple, student-friendly, step-by-step language for letter formations on student practice pages AND teacher's guides

"Automatic letter writing is the single best predictor of length and quality of written composition in younger students." (Dinehart, 2013)

An Integrated Print and Digital Solution for K–5 Handwriting

Get the expert-backed and research-proven resources you need—in the classroom and online—to ensure student success. Our integrated and print and digital handwriting solution builds confident communicators by getting to the heart of every letter with developmentally appropriate, multisensory strategies.

Effective Handwriting Instruction for K–5

Our handwriting curriculum builds confident communicators by getting to the heart of every letter through developmentally appropriate, multisensory strategies and digital experiences for teachers and students.

Interactive Digital Teaching Tool

Our digital teaching tool supports teachers online with dozens of pre-loaded lesson plans, an assignment tracker, and resources like video, music, and animations to engage your classroom instruction.

Emergent Writing for Pre-K

Ease young learners into their communication journeys with this intentionally designed curriculum. Students build pre-writing and emergent writing skills developmentally through engaging, hands-on, play-based activities.

Emergent Writing Solution for Pre-K

Lessons address general readiness, pre-writing, alphabet knowledge, letter and number recognition, capital and lowercase letter formation, counting, drawing, shapes, and colors.

Pre-K Interactive Teaching Tool

Experience a new digital platform to help you bring Pre-K lessons to life with videos, animations, and songs—all in a friendly voice that connects with children. 

Why It Works Easy to learn & teach!

The Handwriting Without Tears® curriculum draws from years of innovation and research to provide developmentally appropriate, multisensory strategies for early writing. The program follows research of how children learn best and includes materials that address all styles of learning.

Multisensory Teaching Strategies

Multisensory activities and manipulatives appeal to all learning styles and provide a hands-on approach to handwriting.

Cross-Curricular Connections

Teach handwriting alongside other subjects! Fun letter lessons and writing activities connect handwriting to math, social studies, ELA, and science.

Unique Letter Order and Style

Innovative letter order and style are developmentally appropriate and promote easy learning for every letter—print and cursive.

Student Edition Design

Clean, simple, and intuitive approach to student editions invites personalization and fosters handwriting success. Lefty-friendly with large step-by-step models.

Line Success

Double lines and line generalization activities promote legible writing. When children know how to place letters, they can write well on any style of lined paper.

Assessments and Tailored Instructional Plans

Easy-to-use assessments track handwriting progress in the classroom and support your instruction for year-round handwriting success.

Proven Teaching Strategies

More than 3 million students benefit from the Handwriting Without Tears® program each year.

High end-of-year test scores show students using Handwriting Without Tears are prepared for the handwriting demands of school.

Grants and Funding Resources

You've got options! We'll help you find the best use of your COVID relief and stimulus funds by showing you how Learning Without Tears' proven, effective products qualify.

Hands-On, Multisensory Products

Browse multisensory products and student workbooks that make printing and cursive easy to teach and easy to learn. 

View Our Teaching Resources

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

An examination of the effectiveness of Handwriting Without Tears instruction

• PMID: 25004586
• DOI: 10.1177/0008417414527065

Background: Handwriting is an important childhood occupation, and implications of poor handwriting may have significant long-term effects.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of Handwriting Without Tears (HWT) on Grade I students' handwriting and perception of skills.

Methods: A cross-over design was used. Repeated measures, at three points, included the Minnesota Handwriting Assessment (MHA) and performance rating scales.

Findings: Eighty-three boys and 66 girls with an average age of 6.2 years participated in the study. Students receiving HWT achieved significantly higher improvements compared to students with teacher-designed instruction in MHA Total Test Score and in MHA components of form, size, space, and alignment (all p < .05). Students had higher average performance ratings when receiving HWT in the first half of the school year.

Implications: Instruction using HWT improves students' perception and skill in handwriting performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Short-term sensorimotor-based intervention for handwriting performance in elementary school children. Alhusaini AA, Melam GR, Buragadda S. Alhusaini AA, et al. Pediatr Int. 2016 Nov;58(11):1118-1123. doi: 10.1111/ped.13004. Epub 2016 Jul 7. Pediatr Int. 2016. PMID: 27085075
• Comparison of cursive handwriting instruction programs among students without identified problems. Shimel K, Candler C, Neville-Smith M. Shimel K, et al. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2009;29(2):170-81. doi: 10.1080/01942630902784738. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2009. PMID: 19401930
• Handwriting Without Tears(®): General Education Effectiveness Through a Consultative Approach. Donica DK. Donica DK. Am J Occup Ther. 2015 Nov-Dec;69(6):6906180050p1-8. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2015.018366. Am J Occup Ther. 2015. PMID: 26565098
• Keyboarding for students with handwriting problems: a literature review. Freeman AR, Mackinnon JR, Miller LT. Freeman AR, et al. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2005;25(1-2):119-47. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2005. PMID: 15760827 Review.
• Relationship between visuomotor and handwriting skills of children in kindergarten. Weil MJ, Amundson SJ. Weil MJ, et al. Am J Occup Ther. 1994 Nov-Dec;48(11):982-8. doi: 10.5014/ajot.48.11.982. Am J Occup Ther. 1994. PMID: 7840134 Review.
• Enhancing Handwriting Performance of Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) Using Computerized Visual Feedback. Bartov R, Wagner M, Shvalb N, Hochhauser M. Bartov R, et al. Children (Basel). 2023 Sep 11;10(9):1534. doi: 10.3390/children10091534. Children (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37761495 Free PMC article.
• "It Is Not the Robot Who Learns, It Is Me." Treating Severe Dysgraphia Using Child-Robot Interaction. Gargot T, Asselborn T, Zammouri I, Brunelle J, Johal W, Dillenbourg P, Archambault D, Chetouani M, Cohen D, Anzalone SM. Gargot T, et al. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Feb 23;12:596055. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.596055. eCollection 2021. Front Psychiatry. 2021. PMID: 33716812 Free PMC article.
• Curriculum-Based Handwriting Programs: A Systematic Review With Effect Sizes. Engel C, Lillie K, Zurawski S, Travers BG. Engel C, et al. Am J Occup Ther. 2018 May/Jun;72(3):7203205010p1-7203205010p8. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2018.027110. Am J Occup Ther. 2018. PMID: 29689170 Free PMC article. Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• DOI: 10.5014/ajot.2015.018366
• Corpus ID: 21828959

Handwriting Without Tears(®): General Education Effectiveness Through a Consultative Approach.

• Denise K. Donica
• Published in American Journal of… 1 November 2015

Figures and Tables from this paper

28 Citations

Effect of slant boards in combination with handwriting practice.

• Highly Influenced

Mental practice combined with repetitive task practice to rehabilitate handwriting in children

Curriculum‐based handwriting programs: a systematic review with effect sizes, a systematic review of occupational therapy intervention for handwriting skills in 4-6 year old children., to develop an occupational therapy kit for handwriting skills in children with dysgraphia and study its efficacy: a single-arm interventional study, examining validity of the print tool compared with test of handwriting skills–revised, persian handwriting assessment tool: reliability in students with specific learning disorders, collaborative instruction and handwriting without tears®: a strong foundation for kindergarten learning, occupational therapy intervention to address handwriting deficit in elementary-aged school children: how to, how much, and how often a scoping review.

• 10 Excerpts

The Effectiveness of Occupational Therapist Guided Remediation Through Handwriting Home Programs

28 references, an examination of the effectiveness of handwriting without tears® instruction, a pilot study of the effectiveness of the handwriting without tears® curriculum in first grade, the effects of using handwriting without tears ® to teach thirty-one integrated preschoolers of varying academic ability to write their names, effectiveness of school-based occupational therapy intervention on handwriting., effect of a coteaching handwriting program for first graders: one-group pretest-posttest design., assessing handwriting intervention effectiveness in elementary school students: a two-group controlled study., the differential effects of the use of handwriting without tears® modified gray block paper to teach two preschool students with developmental delays capital letter writing skills., effects of a classroom-embedded occupational therapist-teacher handwriting program for first-grade students., effectiveness of an integrated handwriting program for first-grade students: a pilot study., handwriting instruction in elementary schools: revisited, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Handwriting Without Tears

Handwriting Without Tears®   (HWT) is an approach to improving students’ printing and cursive. Letter formation is made in a straight up and down manner that is quick and easy to master. Then, the students learn to hook the letters together to create cursive. Most students want their written communication to be legible; they just do not know how to go about it. HWT takes the stress out of putting thoughts on paper.

Research supports the active teaching of handwriting. Findings demonstrate that writing by hand improves creative writing skills and fine motor skills. In fact, elementary students have been found to write more and faster by hand than when keyboarding.

And with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, the emphasis and expectations placed on classroom note-taking and expository writing in grades K–5 are greater than ever.

For more information visit the Learning Without Tears website at lwtears.com

Our Services

Irlen Syndrome

Irlen Syndrome is a perceptual processing disorder that can be treated non-invasively with the Irlen Method.

Handwriting Without Tears is a step by step approach to help students learn to print and write cursive.

Master The Code

Master the Code is a multi-sensory phonics based reading program.

Touch Math teaches students to add, subtract, multiply and divide through the use of touch points on numbers or coins.

Processing and Cognitive Enhancement. A brain based learning program that strengthens processing in 26 major learning areas.

Academic Coaching

Gives students the tools they need to be successful in all subject areas.

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

School-to-home connections.

We partner with schools and districts to ensure all students become successful learners for life.

Building the Foundation for Literacy Success

Always improving. still the best. available now.

Through 40 years of experience, Handwriting Without Tears has evolved to meet educator needs and to always provide the best possible student outcomes. Explore new and improved features and benefits.

Latest News

New on our blog.

Orchestrating Success: Mastering Small-Group Instruction for All Learners

Literacy Matters Podcast

New Episode - Synergize Your Lessons: 5 Steps to Enliven Skills, Content, Practice, and Performance

Phonics, Reading, and Me

Phonics instruction with the right blend of print and digital materials.

Learning Backpack for Summer

Free activities, thoughtfully curated by grade level.

New Workshops

Learning Without Tears offers a variety of live and on-demand workshops. Register now!

Discover Our Programs

Setting students up for success.

We lead young students to success through a pathway to early literacy that embraces the whole child. Students strengthen essential fine and gross motor skills through hands-on materials, learn through purposeful play, and explore language through connected text.

Discover our Readiness Programs for Pre-K…

Handwriting

To help students read, start with handwriting.

Handwriting is a foundational skill that leads students to automatic word recognition. Through time-tested methods of letter formation, students embark on the pathway to reading and writing excellence while connecting letters to sound and fortifying the alphabetic principle.

Explore Handwriting Without Tears…

Discover more Handwriting and Writing Programs…

Connecting Sounds and Letters

When students make connections between sounds and letters, the pathway to reading unfolds before them. We nurture these connections sequentially and systematically, based on the science of reading, helping students acquire the range of skills they need to become proficient readers.

Discover our Phonics Programs…

Professional Learning

Inspire, empower, and thrive.

Learning Without Tears helps every educator find joy in teaching by building confidence and ensuring competence. Our professional learning is designed to INSPIRE teachers to try something new, EMPOWER their growth, and fuel them and the students they serve to THRIVE.

Discover our Professional Learning Programs…

The Dedicated Solution for Administrators, Educators, and Parents. Through 40 years of experience, we have evolved handwriting to meet educator needs and to always provide the best student outcomes possible.

• Designed by Educators
• Proven Effective by Research
• Integrates with Any Literacy Curricula
• Engaging Multi-Sensory Activities
• Powerful Digital Tools

TESTIMONIALS

"The intertwined connections to real world, real life and all the learning modalities facilitate learner success."

Vanessa Brown, B.A., M.Ed. Retired Assistant Principal and ELA Coordinator  

"With the implementation of the teacher’s guide, activity books and manipulatives, Pre-K teachers have the tools they need to successfully prepare young children for kindergarten."

Schronda McKnight-Burns M. Ed. Assistant Director of Early Childhood Education  

"The active teaching really brings the workbook to life by adding in different interactive learning strategies and activities on each page."

Lanor Payne, Ph.D Director of Early Childhood  

"Our students have used Keyboarding Without Tears for years. This program goes beyond nurturing students' typing skills. It gives them the confidence with technology they need to truly succeed today."

Mary Toomey Assistant Superintendent  

Award-Winning