Effect of a Psychomotor Intervention on Motor Competence, Graphomotor Performance and Writing Proficiency in 5- to...

Background/Objectives: Early handwriting and motor skills underpin later academic success, yet robust evidence for psychomotor programs in preschoolers is limited. This study examined whether participation in a six-week psychomotor intervention was associated with changes in graphomotor performance, writing proficiency, and motor competence in preschool children. Methods: This non-randomized quasi-experimental study included pre- and post-intervention assessments and a control group. Thirty-four preschoolers were assigned by class to an intervention group (n = 19) or a control group (n = 15). For six weeks, the intervention group completed three 50 min psychomotor sessions per week targeting fine- and gross-motor abilities, whereas the control group continued its usual school routine. Graphomotor performance (Pascual Graphomotor Test), writing proficiency (seven-item teacher scale) and motor competence (Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2) were assessed one week before and after the program. Results: The intervention group showed significant improvements in graphomotor performance and all motor-skill tasks assessed. Between-group comparisons of pre-post change favored the intervention group for the total graphomotor score (mean difference = -3.14 points, 95% CI [-4.59, -1.68]; p < 0.001; Hedges' g = -1.48) and for all four motor-skill tasks (p ≤ 0.019). At post-intervention, pencil grip was the only writing proficiency item showing a significant between-group difference (p = 0.002; Cramér's V = 0.617), whereas no significant differences were observed for the remaining items. Conclusions: A psychomotor intervention was associated with greater improvements in motor competence and graphomotor performance compared with the control condition. However, evidence for broader improvements in writing proficiency, including handwriting legibility, was limited. Although pencil grip differed between groups at post-intervention, this finding should be interpreted cautiously because the groups already differed at baseline.