Free
Research Article  |   September 2008
Interrater Reliability of a New Handwriting Assessment Battery for Adults
Author Affiliations
  • Kathrine Faddy, BAppSc (Hons), is Occupational Therapist, Campbelltown Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; she previously was an honors student at the University of Western Sydney, where this research was conducted
  • Annie McCluskey, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe Campus (Bldg J), PO Box 170, Lidcombe, New South Wales 1825, Australia; a.mccluskey@usyd.edu.au. She previously was at the University of Western Sydney, where this research was conducted
  • Natasha A. Lannin, PhD, is Lecturer, Rehabilitation Studies Unit, The University of Sydney, Australia
Article Information
Assessment Development and Testing / Neurologic Conditions / Rehabilitation, Disability, and Participation
Research Article   |   September 2008
Interrater Reliability of a New Handwriting Assessment Battery for Adults
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, September/October 2008, Vol. 62, 595-599. doi:10.5014/ajot.62.5.595
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, September/October 2008, Vol. 62, 595-599. doi:10.5014/ajot.62.5.595
Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to develop, pilot, and evaluate the interrater reliability of a new Handwriting Assessment Battery for adults.

DESIGN. Test development included item selection and interrater reliability involving two raters.

METHOD. The test assessed pen control and manipulation, writing speed, and writing legibility. Ten people with brain injury completed the test with two occupational therapists independently rating 10 writing samples. Results were analyzed for reliability using kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1).

RESULTS. Pen control and manipulation subtests showed high to perfect agreement (line drawing subtest, κ = 1.0; dot subtest, κ = 0.80). The speed subtest showed perfect agreement (ICC = 1.0). Writing legibility showed high agreement for all five subtests (ICC = 0.71–0.83), although a ceiling effect was evident for two subtests.

CONCLUSION. Although the test showed excellent interrater reliability, further reliability and validity testing are needed before the test is used clinically.