Development of Pencil Grip

Position in Preschool Children

Mei Hui Tseng

Results ofthis study provide guidelines for therapists to dif-

ferentiate between variations ofmature grips, maladaptive
grips, and grips that are developmentally immature.

Key words: prehension. fine motor. occupational therapy

Abstract

Pencil grip is an aspect ofhandwriting that has been addressed byoccupa-

tional therapists who treat children with handwriting difficulties.
However, there has been little research investigating the developmental
progression of pencil grip in Taiwanese children. Without knowledge of
normal development, therapists cannot justify a diagnosis of"unusual" or
"bizarre" pencil grips.
This study was designed to investigate the developmental progression
in pencil grips in Taiwanese children. The subjects were 326 children aged
2.5 to 6.4 years. The type ofgripseach child used to perform a drawing task
was videotaped. A developmental assessment ofpencil grips compiled by
Schneck and Henderson was used to rate children's grip positions.
A developmental pregression was noted and 14 grip patterns were iden-
tified. About half ofthe 3- to 3.4-year old children were able to employ a
mature grip when drawing in a 7.89 cm X 7 em box. By theage of4, about
three fourths ofthechildren were able to usemature grips todraw. For chil-
dren aged 5 years and older, the percentage increased to more than 90%.
Comparison ofthe results with those ofSchneck and Henderson (1990)
suggests that Taiwanese children 3.5 to 5.9 years ofage are more advanced
than American children of the same age. In addition, the percentage of

Mel Hui Tseng, ScD, OTR, is Associate Professor, School of Occupational

Therapy College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 207

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
Taiwanese children using the lateral tripod is much higher than that of
American children. Possible reasons for these differences are proposed.
Implications for occupational therapy and suggestions for future studies
are discussed.
rayons. pencils, and pens are the primary tools used by

C children in their graphic endeavors. These implements

form an extension of the hand, and their control and
manipulation are important in the attainment of skilled copying,
drawing, and writing (Ziviani, 1995). The knowledge of normal
pencil grip development in preschoolers and elementary school
children is thus of immediate importance for understanding these
children's handwriting behavior (Sovik, 1993).
Pencil grip is an aspect of handwriting that has been addressed by
occupational therapists who treat children with handwriting difficul-
ties; awkward pencil grips are often thought to produce undue stress
in hand muscles, and thus result in quicker fatigue so that handwrit-
ing speed and penmanship are impaired (Alston & Taylor, 1987;
Bailey, 1978; Gajraj, 1982; Kaminsky & Powers, 1981). However,
research on the developmental progression of pencil grip is incom-
plete. Different studies have used different classification criteria in
defining pencil grips, which in tum makes comparison between stud-
ies difficult. Moreover, most of the classification criteria used were
oversimplified such that neither the precursor grips nor variations of
mature grips were described. Insufficient information on the devel-
opment of pencil grip interferes with the effective evaluation of chil-
dren's handwriting problems.
The maturation of grip posture for pencils has been addressed in
only a few studies (Goodgold, 1983; Hwang, 1991; Rosenbloom &
Horton, 1971; Saida & Miyashita, 1979; Schneck & Henderson,
1990). Rosenbloom and Horton (1971) were the first to describe the
development of the dynamic tripod in drawing in British children.
The subjects were 128 children aged from 1.5 to 7 years. Two stages
were identified in the development of the dynamic tripod: the tri-
pod posture and the dynamic tripod. In an attempt to extend
Rosenbloom's and Horton's (1971) classification, Saida and
Miyashita (1979) studied the development of manipulation of pen-
cils in 154 Japanese children aged 2 to 6 years. They identified 4
developmental stages: palmer grasp, incomplete tripod posture, the
tripod posture, and the dynamic tripod.
In a study of handwriting movement in American children,
Goodgold (1983) identified four stages of pencil grip development
in 20 prekindergarten children and 57 kindergartners. They were a
fisted hand grip, a palmer grasp, a grip with various oppositions of
thumb and fingers, and the dynamic tripod. Goodgold thus

208 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 observed age differences in the acquisition of handwriting move-
ment skills.
The aforementioned three studies mainly described the develop-
ment of the tripod grip, and data were based on limited sample size.
Furthermore, the grips developed prior to the dynamic tripod were
not fully described. This was also true of the variations of mature
grips other than the dynamic tripod.
To further extend previous findings on the development of pen-
cil grip, Schneck and Henderson (1990) expanded the sample size
and refined the criteria relating to pencil grip rating. They investi-
gated grips in 320 children aged 3 to 6.9 years, with 20 boys and 20
girls at each 6-month age interval. Based on a literature review and
a pilot study (Schneck, 1987), Schneck and Henderson (1990)
defined 10 pencil grip patterns ranging from the primitive to the
mature. The grip positions used by the children when drawing or
coloring were then rated according to the criteria defining these 10
grip patterns. Results revealed ages differences in group positions:
48% of the youngest group used mature grips, compared with 95%
of the oldest children.
Only one study has investigated the development of pencil grip
in Taiwanese children (Hwang, 1991). That study examined the
position of digits on the pencil shaft, their proximity to the writing
tip, and pressure on the writing instrument in 137 Taiwanese chil-
dren aged 3 years to 5.5 years. Pencil grips were categorized into 1
of 3 types, with no distinction being made between the dynamic
and static tripod grasp: (a) fisted hand; (b) pads of ring and little fin-
gers touching pencil shaft; and (c) the tripod grasp of thumb, index,
and middle fingers. Results showed that by the age of 4 years, about
50% of the children were able to use the tripod grip. By the age of
4.5 years, about 80% of the children were able to use the tripod grip.
In summary, 5 studies have investigated the development of grip
position for pencils, 3 from western and 2 from oriental countries.
The classification systems, terminology and the age range used in
each study were different. Moreover, all studies except that of
Schneck and Henderson (1990) had small sample sizes and limited
classification criteria in describing the precursor grips and varia-
tions of mature grips.
Research indicates that children from different cultures develop
at different rates or (Mardell-Czudnowski, Chien-How & Tien-
Miau, 1986; Solomons & Solomons, 1975; Victora, Victora & Barros,
1990; Werner, 1972). Each culture seems to favour some aspects of
development to the detriment of others, and it can therefore be
inappropropriate to use standardized psychological testing instru-
ments from one culture as diagnostic tools for individuals from a

Fa111998, Volume 18, Number 4 209

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Subjects (N=326)
Age (years)
2.5-2.9 3-3.4 3.5-3.9 4-4.4 4.5-4.9 5-5.4 5.5-5.9 6-6.4
n=33 n=43 n=37 n=39 n=42 n=39 n=43 n=50
Mean age 32.6 39.0 44.2 50.7 56.4 63.2 68.7 74.6
(SD) 0.9) 0.7) (1.9) 0.8) 0.9) (1.9) (8) (1.8)

Boys (%) 57.6 44.2 62.2 48.7 47.6 51.3 48.8 48.0
Girls (%) 42.4 55.8 37.8 51.3 52.4 48.7 51.2 52.0

different culture (Victora, Victora & Barros, 1990). Nevertheless, this

seems to be a common practice in the field of Occupational Therapy
in Taiwan (Yao, 1996). Because of a lack of standardized evaluation
instruments with Taiwanese norms, therapists rely on subjective
judgment or use of instruments developed in the United State with-
out considering their reliability or validity in a different cultural
context. this leads to difficulties both in interpreting test results and
also in documenting progress (Campbell, 1989(, and in the absence
of representative norms, therapists cannot justify a diagnosis of
"unusual" or "bizarre" pencil grips. Knowledge of age differences
in pencil grips can also prevent premature attempts to elicit com-
plex prehensile movements, and therefore forestall the resulting
maladaptive grip patterns (Ziviani, 1987 & 1995).
Although pencil grip is a sub-component of the writing/ drawing
function, it may also itself be considered as a non-linear system in
which "small" (and often unknown/unidentified) cultural differ-
ences may cause such "large" effects as mesurable differences in
representative pencil grip norms. In dynamical system theory (DST)
terms, these "small" cultural differences are functioning as control
parameters (Kamm, Thelen and Jensen, 1990, for a good summary
of DST from a theapist perspective). The control parameters for pen-
cil grip may be as trivial (and as easily measurable) as hand size, or
as intricate as the use of different writing systems (alphabetic vs.
character based). Furthermore, correctly identfying the relevant
control parameters can often suggest potenitally fruitful theory-
based regimens of treatment. Unfortunately, it lies outside the scope
of the present paper to attempt to identify the causers) of the
observed differences in pencil grip between American and
Taiwanese children. Nontheless, an intercultural comparison might
help to suggest control parameters that could usefully be investi-
gated in future studies.
The present strudy therefore not only investigates age differences

210 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 a. b. c.

d. e. f.

, .
J,.
.~~ . 'I~ '

~r
h.
Figure 1-1: Primitive grips: a. radial cross palmar grasp; b, palmar
supinate grasp; c. interdigital grasp-variation 1; d. interdigital
graspvariation 2; e. interdigital grasp-variation 3; f. digital
pronate grasp; g. brush grasp; h. grasp with extended fingers.

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 211

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 Table 2
Number and Percentage of Children in Each Age Group Using
the Various Types of Pencil Grips (N-326)
Age (years)
2.5-2.9 3-3.4 3.5-3.9 4-4.4 4.5-4.9 5-5.4 5.5-5.9 6-6.4
Pencil Grip n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%J n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
Primitive Grips
Radial cross 1 (3.0)
palmar grasp
Palmar 8 (24.2) 2 (4.7) 3 (8.1)
supinate grasp
lnterdigital grasp 6 (18.2) 12.3) 12.7) 1 (2.6)
Digital
pronate grasp
Brush grasp 1 (2.3)
Grasp with 2 (6.1) 4 (9.3) 1 (2.7) 3 (7.7) 1 (2.4)
extended fingers
Transitional Grips
Cross thumb 1 (2.3) 1 (2.0)
grasp
Static tripod 3 (9.1) 8 (18.6) 9 (24.3) 3 (7.7) 3 (7.1) 1 (2.6)
grasp
Four finger 3 (9.1) 6 (14.0) 5 (13.5) 3 (7.7) 4 (9.5) 1 (2.6) 2 (4.7) 1 (2.0)
grasp
Mature Grips
Lateral 1 4 6 10 7 10 18 22
tripod grasp (30) (9.3) (16.2) (25.6) (16.7) (25.6) (41.9) (44.0)
Dynamic 4 4 2 8 16 18 19 22
tripod grasp (12.1) (9.3) (5.4) (20.5) (38.1) (46.2) (44.2) (44.0)
Quadrupod 5 13 10 11 11 9 3 4
grasp (52) (30.2) (27.0) (28.2) (262) (23.1) (6.9) (8.0)

Total 33 43 37 39 42 29 42 50

in pencil grips in Taiwanese children using the Schneck and

Henderson's rating system, but also compares these results with
those of American children.

Method

Subjects

The subjects of this study were 326 children from ten day care
centers, preschools, and kindergartens in the Greater Taipei area,
representing various socioeconomic backgrounds. The number of

212 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 1. J. k.

Figure 1·2: Transitional grips: i. cross thumb grasp; j. static tripod

grasp; k. four finger grasp.

boys and girls and the mean age in each age group are presented in
Table 1. Their intellectual functioning was all in the normal range as
evaluated by the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale (Chinese version)
(Society of Chinese Behavioral Sciences, 1977) and none of them had
sensory or motor deficits according to their teachers' reports.

Measurement

Pencil grip assessment The rating system used here originally fol-
lowed Schneck and Henderson (1990), who compiled different grip
patterns from the literature. Their system accounts for 10 of the 14
grip patterns shown in Figure 1. Our observations during the course
of this study, however, necessitated the inclusion of 4 add itional
grips: the quadruped and 3 variations of the interdigital grasp.
These grips did not appear in the Schneck and Henderson (1990)
study, and are reported here for the first time. In developmental
order, these grips are as follows:
Radial cross palmer grasp-Pencil positioned across palm pro-
jecting radially, held with fisted hand, forearm full y prorated, full
arm movement (Morrison, 1978, cited in Schneck & Henderson,
1990) (Figure l-la).
Palmar supinate grasp-Pencil positioned acro ss palm projecting
ulnarly, held with fisted hand, wrist sligh tly flexed and supinated
away from midposition, full arm movement (Erhardt, 1984, cited in
Schneck & Henderson, 1990) (Figure I-Ib).
Interdigital grasp (variation I)-Fingers are fisted into the palm
and the pencil is positioned across the palm and projects ulnarly
from th e interdigital space of the index and middle fingers .

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 213

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 I. m. n.
Figure 1-3: Mature grips: 1. lateral tripod grasp; m. dynamic tripod
grasp; n. quadrupod grasp.

Movement mainly occurs in the metacarpophalangeal joints and

proximal interphalangeal joints of the fingers and at the wrist. The
forearm may be positioned on the table (Figure l-lc).
Interdigital grasp (variation 2)-Fingers are fisted into the palm
and the pencil is positioned across the palm and projects ulnarly
from the interdigital space of the middle and ring fingers (Figure
I-ld).
Interdigital grasp (variation 3)-Fingers are fisted into the palm
and the pencil is positioned across the palm and projects ulnarly
from the interdigital space of the ring and little fingers (Figure I-Ie).
Digital prorate grasp, only index finger extended-Pencil held in
palmer grasp with index finger extended along pencil toward tip,
arm not supported on table, full arm movement (Morrison, 1978,
cited in Schneck & Henderson, 1990) (Figure I-H).
Brush grasp-Pencil held with fingers, eraser end of pencil posi-
tioned against palm, hand prorated with wrist movement present,
whole arm movement, forearm positioned in air (Schneck &
Henderson, 1990) (Figure I-lg).
Grasp with extended fingers-Pencil held with fingers, wrist
straight and prorated with slight ulnar deviation, forearm moves as
a unit (Schneck & Henderson, 1990) (Figure I-lh).
Cross thumb grasp-Fingers fisted loosely into palm, pencil held
against index finger with thumb crossed over pencil toward index
finger, finger and wrist movement, forearm positioned on table
(Gesell, 1940, cited in Schneck & Henderson, 1990) (Figure 1-2i).
Static tripod grasp-Pencil stabilized against radial side of third
digit by thumb pulp with index pulp on top of shaft, thumb stabi-
lized in full opposition, wrist slightly extended and hand moving as
a unit, pencil resting in open web space, forearm resting on table

214 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 Table 3
Comparison of Grip Development Between American and
Taiwanese Children
Present Study
TAIWAN Age (years)

3-3.4 3.5-3.9 4-4.4 4.5-4.9 5-5.4 5.5-5.9 6-6.4

Grips n=43 n=37 n=39 n=42 n=39 n=43 n=50

Primitive 10 5 4 1 0 0 0
08.6%) 03.5%) 00.3%) (2.4%)
Transitional 14 14 6 7 2 3 2
(32.6%) (37.8%) 05.4%) 06.6%) (5.2%) (7%) (4%)
Mature 21 18 29 34 37 40 48
(48.8%) (48.6%) (74.3%) (81%) (94.80/0) (93%) (96%)

Schneck & Henderson (1990)

AMERICA Age (years)

3-3.4 3.5-3.9 4-4.4 4.5-4.9 5-5.4 5.5-5.9 6-6.4

Grips n=40 n=40 n=40 n=40 n=40 n-40 n-40

Primitive 14 11 6 1 3 0 0
(35.0> (27.5%) 05.0%) (2.5%) (7.5%)
Transitional 7 16 14 13 6 9 4
07.5%) (40.0%) (35.0%) (32.5%) 05.0%) (22.5%) 00.0%)
Mature 19 13 20 26 31 31 36
(47.5%) (32.5%) (50.0%) (65.0%) (77.5%) (77.5%) (90.0%)

(Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971, cited in Schneck & Henderson, 1990)

(Figure 1-2j).
Four finger grasp-Pencil held with four fingers in opposition,
wrist and finger movement, forearm positioned on table (Schneck &
Henderson, 1990) (Figure 1-2k).
Lateral tripod grasp-Pencil stabilized against radial side of
third digit with index pulp on top of shaft of pencil, thumb adduct-
ed and braced over or under anywhere along lateral border of index
finger, wrist slightly extended, fourth and fifth digits of tripod and
wrist movements on tall and horizontal strokes, forearm resting on
table (Schneck, 1987, cited in Schneck & Henderson, 1990) (Figure
1-31).
Dynamic tripod grasp-Pencil stabilized against radial side of
third digit by thumb pulp with index pulp on top of shaft of pencil,
thumb stabilized in full opposition, wrist slightly extended, fourth
and fifth digits flexed to stabilize metacarpophalangeal arch and
third digit, localized movement of digits of tripod and wrist move-
ments on tall and horizontal strokes, forearm resting on table

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 215

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 Table 4
Comparison of Variations of Mature Grips Between American
and Taiwanese Children
Present Study
TAIWAN Age (years)
3-3.4 3.5-3.9 4-4.4 4.5-4.9 5-5.4 5.5-5.9 6-6.4
Mature Grips n=43 n=37 n=39 n=42 n=39 n=43 n=50

Lateral tripod 4 6 10 7 10 18 22
grasp (9.3%) (16.20/0) (25.6%) (16.7%) (25.6%) (41.9%) (44.0%)
Dynamic tripod 4 2 8 16 18 19 22
grasp (9.3%) (5.4%) (20.5%) (38.1%) (46.2%) (44.2%) (44.00/0)
Quadrupod 13 10 11 11 9 3 4
grasp (30.2%) (27.0%) (28.2%) (26.2%) (23.1%) (6.9%) (8.0%)

Schneck & Henderson (1990)

AMERICA Age (years)

3-3.4 3.5-3.9 4-4.4 4.5-4.9 5-5.4 5.5-5.9 6-6.4

Mature Grips n=40 n=40 n=40 n=40 n=40 n=40 n=40

Lateral tripod 3 4 4 7 10 10 11
grasp (7.5%) (10.0%) (10.0%) (17.5%) (25.0%) (25.0%) (27.5%)
Dynamic tripod 16 9 16 19 21 21 25
grasp (40.0%) (22.5%) (40.0%) (47.5%) (52.5%) (52.5%) (62.5%)
Quadrupod
grasp'

'Not observed

(Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971, cited in Schneck & Henderson, 1990)

(Figure I-3m).
Quadrupod grasp-The way children held the pencil was identi-
cal to the dynamic tripod except that the pencil was stabilized
against the radial side of the fourth digit by the thumb pulp with the
index and middle finger pulps on the shaft of pencil, and the thumb
stabilized in full opposition. Children demonstrated intrinsic hand
muscle movements in a coordinated manner and their forearms
were resting on the table while drawing (Figure 1-3n).
Schneck & Henderson (1990) categorized the first 5 grips (i.e.,
radial cross palmer grasp, palmer supinate grasp, digital prorate
grasp, brush grasp, and grasp with extended fingers) as primitive
grips. Cross thumb grasp, static tripod grasp, and four finger grasp
were classified as transitional grasps. Lateral tripod and dynamic
tripod grasps were classified as mature grips.

216 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
Procedure

Subjects were tested either individually or in a small group of

three depending on the children's age. Children at or above the age
of 3.5 years were able to draw together at the same time. Thus, they
were tested in a quiet room with three children sitting at child-sized
desks. Children under the age of 3.5 years were tested individually
with a parent or teacher sitting beside them helping to instruct them
to draw.
Subjects sat at a child-sized desk and were asked to draw figures
similar to the following geometric forms: I ,-, O. +, j, 0, x,~, on a
piece of A4 grid paper with six 7.8 em x 7 em boxes. The geometric
forms served as stimuli to elicit the children's drawing responses.
The drawing products were not scored.
Subjects were presented with a standard 2B pencil. A V8 video
camera was used to videotape, from the palmer side, each child's
grip while he or she was drawing. It was noted that younger chil-
dren tended to switch hands and grips while drawing. In this case,
the researcher rated the most advanced grip used. The time for
videotaping was three minutes.
In view of the age range, it was not possible to demand the same
task from all of the children, but they were all encouraged to make
a drawing of some sort. Whenever possible, therefore, each child
was asked to copy the geometric forms but where that was inap-
propriate he was directed to draw small circles. This was considered
to be a suitable method for obtaining comparable localized finger
movements and was selected in preference to other drawing activi-
ties that might tend to elicit gross movements rather than the fine
ones that were wanted (Erhardt, 1994; Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971).
Scoring procedure. The researcher and a trained assistant viewed
the video tape of each child and rated their grips according to the
criteria specified by the pencil grip assessment described above
(Schneck & Henderson, 1990). In a pilot investigation of 30 children,
inter-rater agreement between the researcher and the trained assis-
tant for assessing the children's grips was computed through the
Kappa correlation. The Kappa coefficient of the pencil grip rating
was 0.96.

Results

Developmental progression of grip position for pencils. Fourteen kinds

of grips for pencils were identified. In addition to the 10 already
described by Schneck and Henderson (1990), the quadrupod and 3

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 217

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 variations of interdigital grips (Figure 1-3n and I-Ic, d, e, respec-
tively) were observed in this study.
The interdigital grasp was classified as a primitive grip because
it was rarely seen after the age of 3 (Table 2) and movement occurs
mainly in the proximal joints. The quadrupod grasp was classified
as a mature grip because children demonstrated intrinsic hand mus-
cle movements in a coordinated manner and their forearms were
resting on the table while drawing.
Age differences in pencil grip development were demonstrated
by the increasing percentage of children in each age group who
used mature grips (Table 2). The frenquency of the primitive and the
transitional grips decreased with age. The percentage of children
using mature grips increased from 30.3% for the youngest group
(2.5-2.9 years) up to 96% for the oldest group (6-6.4 years). At the
age of 4, about three fourths of the children were able to use mature
grips to draw in a 7.8 cm x 7 cm box.
For the age group of 3 to 3.4 years, 48.8% of the children were
able to use mature grips. At 4.5 years of age or older, very few
(only 1 out of 174) used primitive grips. More than 90% of the
children that were at or over 5 years of age used mature grips. No
children above the age of 5 years used primitive grips. Almost all
(96%) the children of 6 years of age and above used mature grips.
Comparison of American and Taiwanese Children. Table 3 compars
between the results obtained by Schneck and Henderson (1990) for
American children with the results of the present study. Only
those age groups that were present in both studies were com-
pared.
For the age groups of 3-3.4 and 3.5-3.9 years, the percentage of
American children who used primitive grips was about twice that
of Taiwanese children. For the age groups of 3.5-3.9, 4-4.4,
4.5-4.9, 5-5.4, and 5.5-5.9 years, there is a marked difference in
the percentage of children achieving the mature grip stage. The
percentage of Taiwanese children achieving a mature grip was at
least 16% higher than that of American children. Furthermore,
Taiwanese children tended to achieve a mature grip at an earlier
age. That is, by the age of 5-5.4 years, 94.8% of Taiwanese children
had developed mature grips. However, for American children it is
not until the age of 6-6.4 years that 90% of children developed a
mature grip.
The percentage of children using the lateral tripod increased with
age, from 3.0% in the youngest group up to 44.0% in the oldest
group (Table 2). In the two older age groups (5.5-5.9 and 6-6.4
years), Taiwanese children demonstrated a much higher percentage
of lateral tripod than American children (Table 4). The quadrupod

218 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
grasp, which was observed in about one fourth of Taiwanese chil-
dren aged from 3 to 5.4 years and about 7.5% in the two older
groups, was not observed in American children.

Discussion

In agreement with previous studies of children's prehension

skills, (Goodgold, 1983; Hwang, 1991; Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971;
Saida & Miyashita, 1979; Schneck & Henderson.i Iv'Xl). age differ-
ences were observed in the acquisition of the grips used to manipu-
late pencils (Table 2).
The effect of cultural factors on grip development is suggested by
the percentages of children using mature grips and those using
primitive grips. Although for the age group of 3 to 3.4 years, about
the same percentage of American (48%) and Taiwanese (48.8%) chil-
dren used mature grips, the percentage of American children using
primitive grips was twice that of Taiwanese children. Furthermore,
for children aged from 3.5 to 5.9 years, there was a difference of
about 16% or higher in the percentage of children using mature
grips, in favor of Taiwanese children. It appears that Taiwanese chil-
dren of 3.5 to 5.9 years were more advanced than American children
of the same age. This result is similar to Saida and Miyashita's
(1979) study, in which they found that Japanese children were more
advanced in manipulation of a pencil than British children. The dif-
ferences were attributed to cultural factors, specifically the fact that
Asian children usually use chopsticks, which requires dexterous
manipulations similar to the dynamic tripod grip.
The dynamic tripod grip has been considered by most educators
and therapists to be the ideal. Schneck and Henderson (1990) found
that the dynamic tripod was the most common of the mature grips
used by all age groups. However, this was not the case in the pre-
sent study. For children younger than 4 years old, the quadrupod
was the most often used mature grip for pencils. The dynamic tri-
pod was the most common pencil grip used only for the children
between the ages of 4.5 years and 5.4 years (Table 2), and for the two
oldest groups: 5.5 to 6.4 years, the lateral tripod was as common as
the dynamic tripod. Moreover, Benbow (1987), in a study of senso-
ry and motor measurements of dynamic tripod skill, also found
more quadrupod grips than tripod grips among normal 7-year-old
American children.
These discrepancies may be related to the early use of the inter-
digital grip. This grip was not observed in Schneck and
Henderson's (1990) study, simply because their subjects were older.

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 219

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 However, it was observed relatively frequently in younger children
aged 2.5 to 2.9 years in the present study. Personal clinical observa-
tion suggests that in younger children (2.5 to 2.9 years), the inter-
digital grip often progresses to become the quadropod. If this pro-
gression does in fact occurn quite commonly, it may help to account
for the high frequency of the quadrupod grip used among children
younger than 4 years old (Table 2). In DST terms, this is equivalent
to speculating that the early formation of an interdigital grip attrac-
tor may be associated with the subsequent formation of a quadru-
pod grip attractor. Table 2 further suggests that, once formed, the
quadrupod grip attractor might be relatively deep and stable,
although it is unclear whether it would be stable enought to account
for the high prevalence of the quadrupod grip in 7-year-olds as
reported by Benbow (1987). In any case, a longitudinal study would
be needed to test these speculations. Futhermore, there remains the
problem of identifying the factors (control prarmeters) that lead to
the formation of the interdigital grip attractor in the first place.
In the present study, over 40% of the children in the two oldest
age groups adopted the lateral tripod grip. This frequency is much
higher than that of Schneck and Henderson's (1990) subjects
(25-27.5%). Why is the prevalence of the lateral tripod grip so high
in Taiwanese children? One reason may be the practice of early pre-
handwriting instructions. Taiwan is a rapidly developing society in
which school success has been highly valued across different levels
of education. Consequently, it is common that when children enter
preschools at the age of three, they start participating in prehand-
writing activities such as tracing numerals with a pencil. By about
the age of 4-4.5 years, children are often required to copy or write
numerals and phonemic symbols. By about the age of 5-5.5 years,
i.e., one year before they enter the first grade, they are usually
required to practice writing numerals, phonemic symbols and
names in a confined space, i.e., boxes on a sheet of grid paper. The
size of the boxes is often the same as that of the workbooks used in
Grade one. Benbow (1995) pointed out that functional use of the
hand depends more on joint stability than joint mobility. It is possi-
ble that because their intrinsic hand muscles are not yet ready for
such delicate manipulations of a pencil, they adopt the lateral tripod
grip to obtain better stability through extrinsic hand muscles. With
the lateral tripod, the pencil is mobilized mainly by the metacar-
pophalangeal joints, the proximal interphalangeal joints of the sec-
ond, third, fourth, and fifth digits and those at the wrist (Bergmann,
1990).
The difference in the writing systems may be another way to
account for the high prevalence of the lateral tripod in Taiwanese

220 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 children. Chinese characters are mainly composed of discrete
strokes such that in the process of writing, pen-lifts and sharp turns
are usually required. The Chinese phonemic system, which is cus-
tomarily practiced by preschoolers in Taiwan, is also composed of
similarly discrete strokes. This is very different from the English
writing system in which many letters include smoothly rounded
strokes. Possibly the lateral tripod is a strategy used to cope with
this feature of the Chinese writing system; with the lateral tripod,
the excursion of the writing tool is controlled by more proximal and
less skilled joints, which is appropriate for the formation of the dis-
crete strokes used in Chinese. In contrast, the English writing sys-
tem demands more delicate distal finger control of the writing tool,
i.e., such movements as are facilitated by the dynamic tripod grasp,
if the curved strokes are to be properly formed. This may account
for the high frequency of the dynamic tripod in the US children.
This is consistent with another study in which the influence of
pencil grip on handwriting endurance and legibility was investigat-
ed in 934 children from Grades 2 to 6 (Tseng, 1997). A much higher
frequency of children was found using the lateral tripod grip
(n=608, 68.30/0) than the dynamic tripod (n=158, 17.80/0). When chil-
dren enter elementary schools, they greatly increase the time spent
in writing Chinese characters (as opposed to numerals and phone-
mic symbols), and this may lead to a correspondingly heavier use of
the lateral tripod grasp. Findings of the present study are in agree-
ment with Bergmann (1990) in confirming the possibility of the lat-
eral tripod grasp as a functional alternative to the dynamic tripod
grasp. And since many quadrupod grips also progress to become
dynamic and fully functional (Kaplin, 1990), the two most frequent
nondynamic-tripod grasp patterns seen in older children (i.e., the
lateral tripod and the quadruped) can both be categorized as
mature grasps.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the pencil grips used by

Taiwanese children aged 2.5 years to 6.4 years varied with age in
ways that were broadly similar to those seen in previous studies.
About 500/0 of 3-year-olds, 750/0 of 4-year-olds, and 94.80/0 of 5-year-
olds employed a mature grip when drawing. The lateral tripod, the
dynamic tripod and the quadrupod appear to be used commonly as
mature grips. It is therefore suggested that the concept of mature
grip be expanded to include all of these variations.
Results of this study provide guidelines for therapists to differ-

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 221

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
entiate between variations of mature grips, maladaptive grips, and
a grip that is developmentally immature. The latter normally
requires intervention in that it may indicate that the child's hand
function or intrinsic musculature are not yet well enough developed
for a more mature pencil grip.
The fact that the prevalence of Taiwanese children using the lat-
eral tripod was much higher than that of American children may be
an example of the effect of cultural differences upon the develop-
mental skills of young children. The special features of the Chinese
writing system may also play an important role here, but there are
also other possible control parameters, such as the use of chopsticks,
hand size, or the strength and function of intrinsic hand muscles.
This is an area that should be more fully investigated in future stud-
ies.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the children who participated in

the study, the parents who were willing to let their children partici-
pate, the teachers from the day care centers, preschools, and kinder-
gartens, and Yu-shen Yang for his assistance with scoring.
This study was supported through funding awarded by the
National Science Council NSC85-2331-B002-162.

References

Alston, J., & Taylor, J. (1987). Handwriting theory, research, and prac-
tice. New York: Nichols.
Bailey, T.J. (1978). An approach to analyzing and improving hand-
writing. Remedial Education, 13, 82-86.
Benbow, M. (1995). Principles and practices of teaching handwrit-
ing. In A. Henderson & C. Pehoski (Eds.), Handfunction in the
child: Foundations for remediation. Chapter 14. St. Louis, MO:
Mosby-Year Book, Inc.
Benbow, M. (1987). Sensory and motor measurements ofdynamic tripod
skill. Unpublished masters thesis, Boston, MA: Boston University.
Bergmann, K.P. (1990). Incidence of atypical pencil grasp among
nondysfunctional adults. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 44, 736-740.
Campbell, S.K. (1989). Measurement in developmental therapy:

222 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 Past, present and future. Physical and Occupational Therapy in
Pediatrics, 9, 1-14.
Cella, D.E, Lloyd, S.R, Wright, BoO. (1996). Cross-cultural instru-
ment equating: current research and future directions. In B.
Spilker (ed.) Quality of life and pharmacoeconcmics in clinical trials.
(2nd Ed.), Chapter 73. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven
Publishers.
Erhardt, RP. (1984). Erhardt Developmental Prehension Assessment.
Laurel, MD: RAMSCO Publishing Co.
Erhardt, RP. (1994). Developmental hand dysfunction. Theory, assess-
ment, and treatment. (Znd ed.). Tucson, AZ: Therapy Skill Builders.
Gajraj, I. (1982). Remediation of handwriting difficulties. Special
Education in Canada, 56, 16-18.
Gesell, A. (1940). Thefirst five years of life. New York: Harper & Row.
Goodgold, S.A. (1983). Handwriting movement quality in
pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children. Archives of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, 64, 471-475.
Hwang, IS. (1991).Prewriting skill of young children: An analysis of
grip posture for pencil (in Chinese). Educational Psychology and
Research, 14, 235-265.
Kaminsky. S., & Powers, R (1981). Remediation of handwriting dif-
ficulties: A practical approach. Academics of Therapy, 17, 19-25.
Kamm, K., Thelen, E., & Jensen, J.L. (1990). A dynamical systems
approach to motor development. Physical Therapy, 70, 763-7751
Kaplin, jP (1990). Pencil grasp: Its relationship to handwriting.
Unpublished masters thesis. Boston, MA: Boston University.
Mardell-Czudnowski, c. Chien-Hou, H., & Tien-Miau, W. (1986).
Cross-cultural adaptation of a developmental test (DIAL-R) for
young children in Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17,
475-492.
Morrison, A. (1978). Occupational therapy for writing difficulties in
spina bifida children with myelomeningocele and hydro-
cephalus. BritishJournal of Occupational Therapy, 41, 394-397.
Rosenbloom, L., & Horton, M.E. (1971). The maturation of fine pre-
hension in young children. Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 13, 3-8.
Saida, Y, & Miyashita, M. (1979). Development of fine motor skill in
children: Manipulation of a pencil in young children aged 2 to 6
years old. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 5, 104-113.
Schneck, C.M., & Henderson, A. (1990). Descriptive analysis of the

Fall 1998, Volume 18, Number 4 223

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
 developmental progression of grip position for pencil and cray-
on control in nondysfunctional children. American Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 44, 893-900.
Schneck, CM. (1987). Developmental change in the use of writing tools
in normal 3.6 to 6.0 yearold children. Unpublished manuscript.
Society of Chinese Behavioral Sciences (1977). Binet-Simon
Intelligence Scale 4th revision (Chinese version). Taiwan: The
Society of Chinese Behavioral Sciences.
Solomons G. & Solomons, H.C (1975). Motor development in
Yucatecan infants. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 17,
41-46.
Sovik, N. (1993). Development of children's writing performance:
Some educational implications. In A.E Kalverboer, B. Hopkins, &
R. Geuze, (Eds.), Motor development in early and later childhood:
Longitudinal approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tseng, M. H. (1997). Effect of pencil grips on handwriting proficiency.
Unpublished manuscript.
Victora, M.D., Victora, CG. & Barros, EC (1990). Cross-cultural dif-
ferences in developmental rates: a comparison between British
and Brazilian children. Children: Care, Health and Development, 16,
151-164.
Werner, E.E. (1972). Infants around the world: Cross-cultural stud-
ies of psychomotor development from birth to two years. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3, 111-134.
Yao, K.p. (1996). Another voice: Further discussion on the efficacy of
sensory integration treatment (in Chinese) Special Education
Quarterly, 61, 28-32.
Ziviani, J. (1987). Pencil grasp and manipulation. In J. Alston & J.
Taylor, (Eds.), Handwriting: Theory, research, and practice. New
York: Croom and Helm.
Ziviani, J. (1995). The development of graphomotor skills. In A.
Henderson & C Pehoski, (Eds.), Hand function in the child:
Foundations for remediation (pp 184-193). St. Louis, Missouri:
Mosby-Year Book, Inc.

224 The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research

Downloaded from otj.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS LAW LIBRARY on March 10, 2015