Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2025
Digital Handwriting Analysis of Characters in Chinese Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: March 11, 2021
Content validity of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6) for use with adults with acquired brain injury (ABI):
Christiana D'Cunha1, Lauren J Christie2,3,4, Annie McCluskey5,6
1School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Introduction:
Occupational therapists are responsible for assessing adult handwriting following stroke and other acquired brain injuries. The Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB) was developed for use as a diagnostic assessment tool and outcome measure. The current study aimed to investigate the content validity of version six of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6).
Methods:
A three round, online-Delphi study was conducted with an international group of expert clinicians and academics experienced in adult handwriting assessment and/or retraining. In round one, participants rated the importance of HAB-v6 domains and the six subtests and recommended modifications to administration and/or scoring procedures. In rounds two and three, participants were re-presented with several HAB-v6 domains where consensus was not reached and rated the importance of suggested modifications from round one. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis.
Consumer And Community Involvement:
Consumers and community members were not involved in this study.
Results:
Fifteen participants from the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and Australia completed round one of the Delphi, 11 participants completed round two, and 15 participants completed round three. In round one, high consensus (>70% participant agreement) was achieved regarding the importance of 5/6 subtests of the HAB-v6; suggestions were made to modify three subtests and add new subtests. In round two, high consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved on three proposed revisions: adding two subtests and modifying instructions for the copying subtest. In round three, low consensus regarding inclusion of the dots drawing subtest remained.
Conclusion:
Based on the Delphi process, the content of five of six subtests of the HAB-v6 are valid for use by occupational therapists and others to measure adult handwriting performance, with the exception of the dots subtest, where consensus was not reached.
