Graphs and Final Data

7/29/2019 Graphs and Final Data

1/27

Table I Descriptive statistics of the normative population

on ETCH- C & KT of SCSIT

N Mean SD Min Max

Age 154 7.132 0.3885 6.67 7.92

ETCH-W 154 90.23 13.81 60 100

ETCH-L 154 89.192 13.91 60.2 100

Speed C 154 40.04 4.819 37.70 42.18

Kin-R 154 43.746 4.167 34.5 48.9

Kin-L 154 43.839 4.03 34.5 48.8

Using the formulae the mean, Standard deviation of the scores of age,

ETCH-W, and ETCH-L, Speed C, Kin-R and Kin- L of the normative

population were calculated.


2/27

Table II Group Compatibility at Pre Test

Using the formulae the mean, standard deviation of the scores of

handwriting legibility, speed and kinesthesia test of the study group

were calculated. Thet value was calculated for the above variable by

applying unpairedt test as shown in Table II. This was done to know

if both the groups differed significantly pre intervention in terms of

the ETCH-W, ETCH-L, Speed C, Kin-R and Kin- L.

Table II shows that p value is more than 0.05 for all the variables;

therefore it proves that there is no significant difference between two

groups pre intervention and both the groups were well matched for

their scores on all the outcome variables.

Measures Group N Mean SD t df

Sig.(2-

tailed)

ETCH-W A 23 69.68 4.685 -0.33 44 0.742

B 23 70.14 4.608

ETCH-L A 23 71.36 6.397 1.227 44 0.226

B 23 69.22 5.383

Speed A 23 37.70 4.322 -0.416 44 0.648

B 23 37.87 4.071

Kin-R A 23 38 2.327 -0.04 44 0.965

B 23 38.03 2.33Kin-L A 23 38.17 2.338 -0.46 44 0.648

B 23 38.48 2.283


3/27

Table III A Group compatibility at pre test of sub tests of ETCH

Using the above formulae the mean, standard deviation of the scores

of individual handwriting component of the study group was

calculated. The t value was calculated for the above variables by

applying unpaired t test as shown in table 3.This was done to know

if both the groups differed significantly pre intervention in terms of

their individual outcome measures on ETCH C test. Table 3 shows

that p value is more than 0.05 for all the variables; therefore it

proves that there is no significant difference between two groups pre

intervention and both the groups were well matched for their

scores on all the outcome variables of ETCH - test.

Measures Group N Mean SD t df Sig.(2-tailed)

I a A 23 59.48 9.034 -1.03 44 0.31B 23 63 13.71

I b A 23 58 9.678 0.22 44 0.827

B 23 57.38 9.508

III W A 23 62.61 16.3 0.177 44 0.86

B 23 61.74 16.96

III L A 23 62.37 8.863 0 44 1

B 23 62.37 9.279

IV W A 23 61.99 11.24 0.508 44 0.614

B 23 60.24 12.12IV L A 23 60.49 7.549 -0.86 44 0.394

B 23 62.39 7.421


4/27

Table III B Group compatibility at pre test of sub tests of ETCH


V W A 23 55.81 12.94 0.191 44 0.849

B 23 55.08 12.77

V L A 23 68.1 5.163 0.211 44 0.834

B 23 67.78 5.183

VI W A 23 53.26 20.37 0.177 44 0.86 B 23 52.17 21.2

VI L A 23 56.09 11.07 0.132 44 0.896

B 23 55.65 11.31

VII W A 23 72.17 8.38 0.129 44 0.202

B 23 68.8 9.188

VII L A 23 73.38 8.652 2.36 44 0.023

B 23 67.57 8.045


5/27

Using the above formulae the mean, standard deviation of the scores of

individual handwriting component of the study group was calculated.

Thet value was calculated for the above variables by applying

unpaired t test as shown in table III B. This was done to know if both

the groups differed significantly pre intervention in terms of their

individual outcome measures on ETCH C test. Table III B shows that

p value is more than 0.05 for all the variables; therefore it proves that

there is no significant difference between two groups pre intervention

and both the groups were well matched for their scores on all the

outcome variables of ETCH - test.

Table IV Comparison of outcome variables at pre test and post

test between both groups

Measures Group N Mean SD t df Sig.(2tailed

Pre test Post test

ETCH-W A 23 69.685 73.0387 3.76 0.96 44 0.344

B 23 70.138 72.4204 3.83

ETCH-L A 23 71.361 74.8639 3.19 1.51 44 0.129B 23 69.223 71.0887 4.12

Speed A 23 37.7 39.3 3.32 0.43 44 0.67

B 23 37.87 38.91 3.84

Kin-R A 23 38 39.23 0.4 0.08 44 0.409

B 23 38.03 39.13 0.63

Kin-L A 23 38.165 39.326 0.85 0.79 44 0.329

B 23 38.478 38.887 0.2


6/27

Table IV analyses the increase in handwriting and kinesthesia scores

pre and post intervention for both groups .The mean, SD were

calculated using the formulae.

ETCH C scores for total word and letter legibility were analyzed

separately. These scores were not combined because they overlap.

That is the total letter score is a smaller unit score that contributes to

the level of total word scores. Therefore the scores are highly

correlated and not considered appropriate to combine to obtain a total

score.


7/27

Using a Unpaired samplet test (2- tailed significance) for calculating

thet values for N=46, to compare the pre and post scores of

handwriting legibility and speed table 5 shows that the difference is

significant for letter legibility at p


8/27

Table VA Comparison of outcome variables of sub tests of ETCH

at pre test and post test between group A and B

Table V analyses the increase in scores of individual component

variables of handwriting pre and post intervention for both groups

.The mean, SD were calculated using the formulae mentioned before.

Using an Unpaired samplet test (2- tailed significance) for

calculating thet values for N=46, Table V shows that the difference

is significant for

1. Uppercase alphabet legibility p=0.000 (t=7.247,df=44)

2. Near point letter legibility p=0.001 (t=3.399,df=44)

3. Far point letter legibility p=0.003 (t3.199,df=44)


I a A 23 13.59 4.033 1.51 44 0.145B 23 8.517 15.65

I b A 23 15.56.9 3.45 7.25 44 0

B 23 6.744 4.705

III W A 23 8.696 10.14 0.27 44 0.788

B 23 7.826 11.66

III L A 23 12.19 4.308 3.4 44 0.001

B 23 8.157 3.721

IV W A 23 16.25 7.82 -1.2 44 0.231B 23 18.84 6.606

IV L A 23 13.39 5.834 3.2 44 0.003

B 23 8.235 5.071


9/27

Table VB Comparison of outcome variables of sub tests of ETCH

at pre test and post test between group A and B

4. Manuscriptcursive translation letter legibility p=0.011

(t=2.660,df=44)

5. Dictation letter legibility p=0.129 (t=1.546, df=44)

6. Sentence composition letter legibility p=0.003 (t=-3.128,

df=44).

The difference is not significant for the remaining components. It

means that the performance of kinesthetic training groups on certain

components after intervention was better than handwriting practicegroup. This proves that the study was significant as kinesthetic


V W A 23 22.45 9.546 2 44 0.051

B 23 16.66 10.05

V L A 23 7.944 2.74 2.66 44 0.011

B 23 5.517 3.41

VI W A 23 17.39 13.97 0.24 44 0.808

B 23 16.3 16.18

VI L A 23 18.91 9.648 1.55 44 0.129B 23 14.35 10.37

VII W A 23 1.078 3.512 0.13 44 0.089

B 23 0.909 5.148

VII L A 23 6.005 4.72 -3.1 44 0.003

B 23 5.335 6.679


10/27

Table VI Comparison of outcome variable at per and post test in

group A


ETCH-W Pre 23 69.68 4.685 -4.3 22 0Post 23 73.04 5.088

ETCH-L Pre 23 71.36 6.397 -5.3 22 0

Post 23 74.86 7.186

Speed Pre 23 89.79 4.602 -4 22 0.001

Post 23 93.51 3.611

Kin-R Pre 23 38 2.327 -15 22 0

Post 23 39.23 2.323

Kin-L Pre 23 38.17 2.338 -6.6 22 0

Post 23 39.33 2.084

Table 8 analyses the increase in handwriting and kinesthesia scores

pre and post intervention for group A .The mean, SD were calculated

using the formulae Using a paired samplet test for calculating thet

values for N=23, to compare the pre and post scores of handwriting

legibility and speed table 8 shows that the difference is highly

significant for word legibility at p


11/27

hands. Therefore kinesthetic training resulted in significant

improvement in kinesthesis in group A

Table VII Comparison of outcome variable at per and post test in

group B


ETCH-W Pre 23 70.14 4.608 -2.9 22 0.009

Post 23 72.42 4.479

ETCH-L Pre 23 69.22 5.383 -2.2 22 0.041

Post 23 71.09 6.591

Speed Pre 23 90.37 4.364 -4.4 22 0

Post 23 93.6 3.508

Kin-R Pre 23 38.03 2.33 -8.4 22 0Post 23 39.13 2.325

Kin-L Pre 23 38.48 2.283 -2.1 22 0.044

Post 23 38.89 2.308


pre and post intervention for group B .The mean, SD were calculated

using the formulae mentioned before.

Using a paired samplet test for calculating thet values for N=23, tocompare the pre and post scores of handwriting legibility and speed

table 9 shows that the difference is highly significant for word

legibility at p


12/27

subjects on kinesthesis scores. Using a paired sample t test for N=23,

to compare the pre and post treatment scores on Kinesthesis, Table 9

shows that the difference is highly significant at p


13/27

Table VIII A Comparison of outcome variables of sub tests of ETCH

at pre test and post test of group A

Table VIII A analyses the increase in scores of individual component

variables of handwriting pre and post intervention for group A. The

mean, SD were calculated using the formulae mentioned before.

Using a paired samplet test for calculating thet values for N=23,table 6 shows that the difference is highly significant for all

components at p


14/27

Table VIII B Comparison of outcome variables of sub tests of ETCH

at pre test and post test of group A

Table VIII A analyses the increase in scores of individual component

variables of handwriting pre and post intervention for group A. The


Using a paired samplet test for calculating thet values for N=23,

table 6 shows that the difference is highly significant for all

components at p


15/27

Table IX A Comparison of outcome variables of sub tests of ETCH at

pre test and post test of group B

Table IXA analyses the increase in scores of individual component

variables of handwriting pre and post intervention for group B. The




components at p


16/27

Thus there was a significant improvement in all the individual

components of handwriting post intervention due to handwriting

practice in group B

Table IX B Comparison of outcome variables of sub tests of ETCH at

pre test and post test of group B

Table IXB analyses the increase in scores of individual component

variables of handwriting pre and post intervention for group B. The




components at p


17/27

Thus there was a significant improvement in all the individual

components of handwriting post intervention due to handwriting

practice in group B

Kin R Kin L

ETCH-W Pearson correlation 0.097 0.115

Sig.(1 -tailed) 0.261 0.224

N 154 154

ETCH -L Pearson correlation 0.074 0.055

Sig.(1 -tailed) 0.312 0.359

N 154 154


18/27


19/27


20/27


21/27

Table 7 Comparison of individual outcome variables of

handwriting of group B at pre test and post test


Sig.(2-

tailed)

I a Pre 23 63 13.71 -2.16 22 0.016

Post 23 71.51 10.88I b Pre 23 57.38 9.508 -6.87 22 0

Post 23 64.13 9.035

III W Pre 23 61.74 16.96 -3.22 22 0.04

Post 23 69.57 22.46

III L Pre 23 62.37 9.279 -10.5 22 0

Post 23 70.52 9.009

IV W Pre 23 60.24 12.12 -13.7 22 0

Post 23 79.08 11.96

IV L Pre 23 62.39 7.421 -7.79 22 0

Post 23 70.62 9.291

V W Pre 23 55.08 12.77 -7.95 22 0

Post 23 71.74 16.22

V L Pre 23 67.78 5.183 -7.76 22 0

Post 23 73.3 7.427

VI W Pre 23 52.17 21.2 -4.83 22 0

Post 23 68.48 27.4

VI L Pre 23 55.65 11.31 -6.64 22 0

Post 23 70 18.53

VII W Pre 23 68.8 9.188 -0.85 22 0.406

Post 23 69.71 9.299


22/27

VII L Pre 23 67.57 8.045 -3.83 22 0.001

Post 23 72.9 8.508

Table 8 Comparison of outcome variables at pre test and post test

in group A

Table 9 Comparison of outcome variables at pre test and post test

in group B

Measure Grou N Mean SD t df Sig.(2-


Sig.(2-

tailed)

ETCH-W Pre 23 69.68 4.685 -4.28 22 0Post 23 73.04 5.088

ETCH-L Pre 23 71.36 6.397 -5.26 22 0

Post 23 74.86 7.186

Speed Pre 23 89.79 4.602 -3.99 22 0.001

Post 23 93.51 3.611

Kin-R Pre 23 38 2.327 -14.6 22 0

Post 23 39.23 2.323

Kin-L Pre 23 38.17 2.338 -6.58 22 0 Post 23 39.33 2.084


23/27

s p tailed)

ETCH-W Pre 23 70.14 4.608 -2.86 22 0.009

Post 23 72.42 4.479

ETCH-L Pre 23 69.22 5.383 -2.17 22 0.041

Post 23 71.09 6.591

Speed Pre 23 90.37 4.364 -4.42 22 0

Post 23 93.6 3.508

Kin-R Pre 23 38.03 2.33 -8.35 22 0

Post 23 39.13 2.325

Kin-L Pre 23 38.48 2.283 -2.13 22 0.044

Post 23 38.89 2.308


24/27


pre and post intervention for group A .The mean, SD were calculated







score.

Using a paired samplet test for calculating thet values for N=23, to

compare the pre and post scores of handwriting legibility and speed


legibility at p


25/27


pre and post intervention for group B .The mean, SD were calculated







score.

Using a paired samplet test for calculating thet values for N=23, to

compare the pre and post scores of handwriting legibility and speed


legibility at p


26/27

Relationship between Handwriting scores and kinesthesis

Pearsons correlation analysis was computed to examine the

relationship between ETCH-C scores and Kinesthesis Scores.

Table 10 Correlation of handwriting scores and kinesthesis in

normative sample

Kin R Kin L

ETCH-W Pearson correlation 0.097 0.115

Sig.(1 -tailed) 0.261 0.224

N 154 154


Sig.(1 -tailed) 0.312 0.359

N 154 154

Using a Pearsons product moment correlation test on the data, there

is no significant correlation found between any of the handwriting

scores and kinesthesia as r=0.097 p=.0261 for word legibility and

kinesthesia correlation and r=0.074 ,p=0.312 for letter legibility and

kinesthesia correlation.

Table 11 Correlation of handwriting scores and kinesthesis in

Study sample

Kin R Kin L

ETCH-W Pearson correlation 0.084 0.073 Sig.(1 -tailed) 0.311 0.426

N 46 46


27/27


Sig.(1 -tailed) 0.352 0.441

N 46 46

Using a Pearsons product moment correlation test on the study data,

there is no significant correlation found between any of thehandwriting scores and kinesthesia as r=0.084 p=.0311 for word

legibility and kinesthesia correlation and r=0.053 ,p=0.352 for letter

legibility and kinesthesia correlation.

Graphs and Final Data

Documents

Transcript of Graphs and Final Data