Assessment & Research

A new approach for the quantitative evaluation of drawings in children with learning disabilities.

Galli et al. (2011) · Research in developmental disabilities 2011
★ The Verdict

A quick pencil-and-paper drawing score spots fine-motor gaps in late-elementary kids with learning disabilities.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who write handwriting or fine-motor goals for late-elementary students.
✗ Skip if Clinicians serving only older clients with no drawing demands.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Galli et al. (2011) built a fast, number-based way to score kids’ drawings.

They tested it on 8- to 11-year-olds with learning disabilities and same-age peers.

The team looked at line steadiness, shape closure, and corner sharpness to spot delays.

02

What they found

The new protocol cleanly split the two groups.

Kids with learning disabilities drew shakier lines and missed corners more often.

A short paper-and-pencil task gave clear red flags for fine-motor problems.

03

How this fits with other research

Ohan et al. (2015) used the same scoring sheet on children with Down Syndrome.

They found the DS group drew faster but sloppier, so the tool still caught motor issues.

Khalid et al. (2010) had earlier tracked speed and pen pressure while kids wrote.

Their high-tech method also separated at-risk writers, showing low-tech and high-tech drawing tests can both work.

Bo et al. (2014) saw timing problems in kids with DCD using the MABC, matching the timing flaws the drawing tool picks up.

04

Why it matters

You now have a five-minute, no-equipment probe for graphomotor delay.

Use it during intake or before handwriting goals to decide if fine-motor support is needed.

If scores are low, add stylus control, tracing, or joint-stability drills to the plan.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Have the student draw a triangle and a cross on one sheet, score it with the protocol, and log errors to track progress.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
42
Population
other
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

A new method for a quantitative and objective description of drawing and for the quantification of drawing ability in children with learning disabilities (LD) is hereby presented. Twenty-four normally developing children (N) (age 10.6 ± 0.5) and 18 children with learning disabilities (LD) (age 10.3 ± 2.4) took part to the study. The drawing tasks were chosen among those already used in clinical daily experience (Denver Developmental Screening Test). Some parameters were defined in order to quantitatively describe the features of the children's drawings, introducing new objective measurements beside the subjective standard clinical evaluation. The experimental set-up revealed to be valid for clinical application with LD children. The parameters highlighted the presence of differences in the drawing features of N and LD children. This paper suggests the applicability of this protocol to other fields of motor and cognitive valuation, as well as the possibility to study the upper limbs position and muscle activation during drawing.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.051