Date Presented Accepted for AOTA INSPIRE 2021 but unable to be presented due to online event limitations. Aims: This quantitative study compared effects of occupation-based versus handwriting interventions on handwriting. Methods: Twenty-seven participants, mean age 6.3, participated in a 3-week study. Initially, there was no significant difference between groups on handwriting. Results: Occupation-based interventions were more effective on handwriting and visual–perceptual skills. Handwriting interventions lead to a greater gain in perceptual–motor skills. Conclusion: Both interventions are beneficial. Primary Author and Speaker: Camille Skubik-Peplaski Additional Authors and Speakers: Jennifer Hight, Laura Bray, and Carol Rushing-Carr

No abstract

Date Presented 04/04/19 Effective use of the hands to engage in a variety of developmental occupations is critical for a child to be successful and independent. Understanding and choosing effective interventions to improve fine-motor skills and handwriting is imperative for pediatric OTs. This study used occupational performance and handwriting as both the intervention and the outcome, with both being found to be beneficial for skill development and sustained engagement in fine-motor activities. Primary Author and Speaker: Camille Skubik-Peplaski Additional Authors and Speakers: Jennifer Hight Contributing Authors: Carol Rushing-Carr

215-216). Means, standard deviation, percentages and ranges of scores were calculated for the quantitative data using Microsoft Excel (2013). Validity Validity was supported through access to the facility, prolonged exposure, reflexivity, a detailed audit trail, and journaling of the experiences of the researcher adding trustworthiness in data analysis (Lysack, Luborsky, & Dillaway, 2006, p. 352-353). Validity was enhanced during the quantitative program through incorporation of a pretest and posttest, and ongoing collection of data (Nelson, 2006, p. 68). The program took place in the child's naturally occurring environment to minimize artificiality, a threat to external validity (Nelson, 2006, p. 75).