Erhardt Developmental Prehension Assessment (1994) Hand function and fine motor ability All Erhardt Developmental Products 2379 Snowshoe Court E., Maplewood, MN 55119; www.ErhardtProducts.com. Fitnessgram (2010) (Standards 2010) Physical Fitness 4. Grade through high school.

Cite thisEmail thisAdd to favorites Staff view

APA Citation

Erhardt, Rhoda Priest,Rodenberg, Donna. (Eds.) () Developmental prehension components of independent feeding :from assessment to treatment to function

MLA Citation

Erhardt, Rhoda Priest,Rodenberg, Donna,eds. Developmental Prehension Components Of Independent Feeding: From Assessment To Treatment To Function. : . Print.

These citations may not conform precisely to your selected citation style. Please use this display as a guideline and modify as needed.

produced and directed by Rhoda P. Erhardt.

Names:	Erhardt, Rhoda Priest, Rodenberg, Donna,
Published:	[Maplewood, MN] : Erhardt Developmental Products, [2010?]
Topics:	Child development deviations. Hand - Abnormalities. Psychological tests for children. DVDs.
Tags:	Add

000	02373cgm a2200505Ii 4500
001	154589
003	PRKdb
005	20131104152807.0
007	vd cvaizs
008	131030t20101985mdu028 f vleng d
020	c$90.00
035	a(OCoLC)ocn861753113
040	aIAQ beng erda cIAQ dIAQ dPRKdb
049	aIAQA lvid1 p33036002187768
050	4 aRJ133 b.D47 2010 Video disc
245	00 aDevelopmental prehension components of independent feeding : bfrom assessment to treatment to function / cproduced and directed by Rhoda P. Erhardt.
264	1 a[Maplewood, MN] : bErhardt Developmental Products, c[2010?]
264	4 c©1985
300	a1 videodisc (28 min.) : bsound, color ; c4 3/4 in. + e1 CD-ROM.
336	atwo-dimensional moving image btdi 2rdacontent
336	atext btxt 2rdacontent 3CD-ROM
337	avideo bv 2rdamedia
337	acomputer bc 2rdamedia 3CD-ROM
338	avideodisc bvd 2rdacarrier
338	acomputer disc bcd 2rdacarrier 3CD-ROM
344	adigital boptical gmonaural 2rda
346	bNTSC
347	avideo file bdvd video eregion 1 2rda
347	atext file bPDF 2rda 3CD-ROM
500	a'An occupational therapy home program derived from the Erhardt developmental prehension assessment'--Opening frames.
500	aCD-ROM contains viewing guides, discussion guides, and a catalog in PDF format.
500	aOriginally issued as VHS tape in 1985.
508	aScript by Rhoda P. Erhardt & Donna Rodenberg ; edited by Rhoda P. Erhardt & Snyder Films.
511	0 aNarration by Rhoda P. Erhardt.
520	aThis presentation illustrates how the EPDA is used to determine missing components of hand skills needed for functional activities such as independent feeding, the relationship of fine-motor to gross motor skills, oral-motor, visual and cognitive developmental skills. It shows ways to integrate treatment into a home program.
538	aDVD.
650	0 aChild development deviations.
650	0 aHand xAbnormalities.
650	0 aPsychological tests for children.
690	aDVDs.
700	1 aErhardt, Rhoda Priest, eauthor, edirector, eproducer, enarrator, eeditor of moving image work.
700	1 aRodenberg, Donna, eauthor.
710	2 aSynder Films (Firm)
710	2 aErhardt Developmental Products.
994	a01 bIAQ

Erhardt Developmental Products DVDs, Books, and other Materials about ChildDevelopment and Children with Disabilities

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Products by Topics

FAQs

Free Downloads

Resource Links

Order Info

Contact Us

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) ABOUTHAND PREFERENCE

Q. What is the difference in meaningbetween these groups of words?
* Hand dominance, handedness, and handpreference
A. Hand dominance means that one hand has the mostinfluence or control. Handedness means that one hand is more reliablefor use across a range of skillful acts. Hand preference means that onehand is preferred or chosen.
* Cerebral dominance, cerebrallateralization, and cerebral asymmetry
A. Cerebral dominanceimplies that the hemisphere controlling language is the most importantone. Cerebral lateralization or asymmetry emphasizes that thehemispheres are different, and the relationship between them iscomplementary.
* Ambidexterity and mixed dominance
A.Ambidexterity is defined as the ability to use both hands equally well,an unusual skill in the normal population. The term mixed dominance hasbeen used to describe a confusion or delay in the development of handdominance in persons with disabilities.

Q. When does handdominance emerge in normal development?
A. According to Dr.Arnold Gesell, the developmental progression in the first year beginswith use of one hand, then the other, then alternating hands, and thenusing both hands together, first symmetrically (about 4 months), thenone assisting the other (about 1 year). Tasks requiring each hand toperform different skilled movements develop during the preschool yearsand beyond. A majority of children show a preference by age 3 and mostby school age, but Dr. Gesell wrote that hand dominance doesn't becomewell integrated in some normal children until eight or nine years of age(Gesell & Ames, 1947). It is also true that some adults demonstrateskillful ambidexterity, especially in sports.

Q. What affectshand dominance more: genetic or environmental factors? Does this differin children with disabilities?
A. It is generally agreed thatgenetic factors play the most important part in determining handedness.However, situational or environmental factors such as the task(precision or power), the materials (size, shape, weight), andpositioning (child and object) affect choices for reaching/grasping,lifting/carrying, and unilateral/bilateral hand use. Children withdisabilities usually have one arm/hand that is less affected than theother. Thus, despite genetic predisposition, they choose the limb thatis most efficient. However, even they demonstrate choices based onsituational factors, such as using one hand for distal tasks such asfinger feeding, and the other hand for tasks requiring skills in moreproximal movements such as shoulder/elbow/wrist control during utensiluse. In fact, studies have shown that handedness is simply not aunidimensional trait, since specialization for the control of distal andproximal musculature may be located in different hemispheres. Thusbehaviors that rely upon axial musculature and involve strength morethan dexterity show less laterality bias than fine motor behaviors suchas writing (Healey, Liederman & Geschwind, 1986; Peters & Pang,1992).

Q. How do left-handers compare with right-handers infunctional performance, and why should we be knowledgeable about thedifferences?
A. A large number of research studies have foundthat the number of left-handers is greater in persons with learningdisabilities. Even studies of individuals without disabilities show thatright-handers do better than left-handers academically, but thosedifferences are not apparent until adolescence. However, in youngchildren, handedness is seldom found to be related to learning orproblem-solving abilities (Coren, 1992). Elementary age right-handersand left-handers performed equally well on the Southern California MotorAccuracy Test (Smith, 1983). We should understand the problemsexperienced by normal left-handers in a primarily right-handed society(writing from left to right, using scissors, operating zippers, etc.),since so many children with disabilities have less involvement on theleft side (due to greater incidence of left hemisphere damage). In otherwords, some of their functional problems may be due to the use of theleft hand, rather than the disability.

Q. Is it important foreye, hand, ear, and foot dominances to be congruent?
A.According to the literature, 75% of the normal population has eye-handcongruency, 63% have congruent ear and hand, and 85% have congruent footand hand. Crossed eye-hand dominance may be more efficient for certainactivities such as batting a baseball.

Q. If a child keepsalternating hands when writing, how do we determine which hand should beused? What are the implications of unclear or mixed dominance foracademic performance?
A. 'Mixed dominance' may be a symptom ofdysfunction rather than a cause. A study of children with mildneurological impairment from early brain insult showed that theright-handers and those with mixed handedness did equally well in school(Saigal, et al, 1992). So, we must first determine if the actualproducts (handwriting and content) are functionally inadequate. If so,we need to analyze the child's posture and movements, the nature of thetask, and the characteristics of the environment. Those clinicalobservations and specific evaluations can be recorded on forms such asthe Documentation of Hand Preference and Quality of Performance Chart,the Erhardt Developmental Prehension Assessment (EDPA)(Erhardt, 1994),and the Erhardt Hand Preference Assessment (Erhardt, 2012a, 2012b). Fromthat information we can plan intervention consisting of activities that1) remediate missing developmental components, and 2) adapt theenvironment to enhance function.

Q. What are some examples ofmissing developmental components and environmental adaptations relatingto incomplete acquisition of hand dominance, and the appropriateinterventions?
A. Essential developmental components includepostural control, eye-hand coordination, unilateral/bilateral/bimanualfunction, and perceptual concepts (body image, laterality, andinternal/external directionality). However, opportunities should also beprovided for non-directed exploration of objects/materials, a naturalway for children to follow the normal developmental progression towardhandedness (Knickerbocker, 1980). The purpose of intervention is toremediate motor development so that the brain can continue with itsmaturational goals of 1) establishing at least one hand for skilledwork, and 2) the ability of both hands to interact for a variety oftasks. If those developmental components are very delayed or permanentlyimpaired, environmental adaptations include postural supports in floor,sitting, and standing positions and adapted clothing/toys/tools forfeeding, writing, etc. These adaptations should be constantly modified,as the child's needschange.

REFERENCESAyres, A.J. (1972).Sensory Integration and Learning Disorders. Los Angeles: WesternPsychological Services.

Coren, S. (1992). The Left-Hander Syndrome.New York: The Free Press.

Crinella, F.M, Beck, F.W., & Robinson, J.W.(1971). Unilateral dominance is not related to neurophysiologicalintegrity. Child Development, 42, 2033-2054.

Erhardt, R.P. (1994). TheErhardt Developmental Prehension Assessment (EDPA ). Maplewood, MN:Erhardt Developmental Products.

Erhardt, R.P. (2012a). Hand Preference:Theory, Assessment, and implications for Function. Maplewood, MN:Erhardt Developmental Products.

Erhardt, R.P. (2012b). The Erhardt HandPreference Assessment. Maplewood, MN: Erhardt DevelopmentalProducts.

Gesell, A. & Ames, L.B. (1947). The development ofhandedness. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 70, 155-175.

Healey,J.M., Liederman, J., & Heschweind, N. (1986). Handedness is not aunidimensional trait. Cortex, 22, 33-53.

Knickerbocker, B.M. (1980). AHolistic Approach to the Treatment of Learning Disorders. Thorofare, NJ:Charles B. Slack.

Peters, M. & Pang, J. (1992). Do ' right-armed'lefthanders have different lateralization of motor control for theproximal and distal musculature? Cortex, 28, 391-399.

Porac, C., &Coren, S. (1981). Lateral preferences and human behavior. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Saigal, S., Rosenbaum, P., Szatmari, P. & Hoult, L.(1992). Non-right handedness among ELBW and term children at eight yearsin relation to cognitive function and school performance. DevelopmentalMedicine and Child Neurology, 34, 425-433.

Smith, S.M. (1983).Performance difference between hands in children on the motor accuracytest. Dazzle dvc 170 driver. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 37(2), 96-101.

You arewelcome to copy and paste this page for your own clinical or educationaluse.

* Glossary of Hand Preference Terms
* The Erhardt Hand Preference Assessment(EHPA)
* Documentation of HandPreference Chart (free pdf download)
* Hand Function * Prehension Videos

Home Page Curriculum Vitae Products by Topic FAQs Free Downloads Resource Links Order Info