Dysgraphia Evaluation Reference — Texas SLD

Texas Dyslexia Handbook — Dysgraphia Identification Questions

✅ Figure 5.3 — Three Required Questions

All three questions must be addressed in an evaluation where dysgraphia is suspected.

Characteristics & consequences present?
• Illegible and/or inefficient handwriting with variably shaped and poorly formed letters
• Difficulty with unedited written spelling
• Low volume of written output and problems with other aspects of written expression

Underlying mechanism present?
Do these difficulties typically result from a deficit in graphomotor function (hand movements used for writing) and/or storing and retrieving orthographic codes (letter forms)?

Unexpected for age and ability?
Are these difficulties unexpected for the student's age in relation to the student's other abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction?

Source: Texas Dyslexia Handbook p. 61 (2024)

⚠️ Legibility vs. Efficiency — Both Matter

The Handbook specifically names illegible AND/OR inefficient handwriting. This is clinically important.

A student can produce somewhat readable letters but still meet dysgraphia criteria if:

Output is effortful and slow — not automatic
Alphabet writing fluency is significantly below age expectations
The student fatigues quickly during writing tasks
Written output volume is far below what the student can produce orally

Clinical framing: "Dysgraphia" should not be framed as "handwriting looks bad." The operative criterion is that writing is not automatic, which creates downstream working memory load and constrains all written output — including composition quality.

Source: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024)

Two Distinct Underlying Mechanisms

✋ Pathway 1 — Graphomotor Deficit

What it is: A deficit in the motor planning, execution, and coordination required to physically produce letters on a page. Graphomotor skills are a specialized subset of fine motor skills requiring fine muscle control, visual perception, sensory feedback, and motor planning.

Observable indicators:

Poor pencil grip (thumb wrap, fisted grip)
Poor adherence to baseline/slant
Inconsistent letter sizing
Ascending/descending letters not adhering to line
Poor margins
Inconsistent spacing between words
Slow, labored, effortful production
Unusual posture or paper placement while writing

          Key clinical move — Copy vs. Dictation: Ask the student to copy a sentence from a model, then write a dictated sentence. If handwriting quality does not improve significantly when copying, the deficit is primarily graphomotor — the motor program itself is impaired, not just letter memory.
        

Source: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Feder & Majnemer (2007); Ziviani & Wallen (2006)

🧩 Pathway 2 — Orthographic Processing Deficit

What it is: A deficit in storing and retrieving letter forms and letter sequences from long-term memory. The student knows what a word sounds like but cannot reliably retrieve how to form or spell it.

Observable indicators:

Same letter formed inconsistently across a single writing sample
Difficulty retrieving letter forms spontaneously ("I want to write 'y' but I can't remember what it looks like")
Orthographic spelling errors — correct phonology but wrong letter sequences or whole-word forms
Difficulty with sight word spelling for common, frequently encountered words
Letter reversals or transpositions persisting beyond early grades

          Key clinical move — Copy vs. Dictation: If handwriting improves significantly when copying from a model (letter forms become more consistent), the deficit is more likely orthographic — the motor can execute correctly when memory is externally supported, but spontaneous retrieval of letter forms fails.
        

Source: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Berninger & Wolf (2009)

⚖️ Can a Student Have Both?

Yes — graphomotor and orthographic deficits frequently co-occur. A student may have poor motor execution and poor letter-form retrieval simultaneously. The distinction still matters because it has different instructional implications: graphomotor intervention focuses on motor patterning and automatization (OT-targeted handwriting programs), while orthographic intervention focuses on building stable mental representations of letter forms and word spellings (structured literacy with explicit orthographic mapping).

Documentation tip: In the FIE, address each pathway separately. Note whether copy improved handwriting (points toward orthographic), did not improve handwriting (points toward graphomotor), or both pathways are implicated. This specificity supports defensible eligibility framing and appropriate service recommendations.

Source note — Two-Pathway Framework: The graphomotor vs. orthographic pathway distinction and the copy-vs.-dictation clinical differentiator on this page are drawn from Berninger & Wolf (2009), Wolf & Berninger (2018), and training by Seaberry (ESC Region 11, 2025). This page is intended as an orientation to the framework — not a substitute for the published sources or direct training. Practitioners implementing this model should consult Teaching Students with Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, OWL LD, and Dyscalculia (Berninger & Wolf, 2009) and seek TEDA-affiliated training for the complete clinical protocol.

When to Evaluate & What to Assess

🚦 Evaluation Trigger Criteria

Per the Texas Dyslexia Handbook (p. 57), schools shall recommend evaluation for dysgraphia when a student demonstrates either of the following:

Impaired or illegible handwriting that is unexpected for the student's age/grade

Impaired handwriting that interferes with spelling, written expression, or both that is unexpected for the student's age/grade

Procedural note: When an FIIE is recommended, parents must receive Prior Written Notice (PWN), Notice of Procedural Safeguards, and the Overview of Special Education for Parents form, and have the opportunity to provide written consent to evaluate.

Source: Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024), pp. 57, 59

🗂️ Figure 5.2 — Domains to Assess

The Handbook (p. 60) specifies three evaluation domain columns. The MDT evaluation report must address each column.

Academic Skills

Letter formation / handwriting
Word/sentence dictation (timed and untimed)
Copying of text
Written expression
Spelling
Writing fluency (accuracy and rate)

Cognitive Processes

Memory for letter or symbol sequences (orthographic processing)

Possible Additional Areas

Phonological awareness
Phonological memory
Working memory
Letter retrieval
Letter matching

MDT composition note: TEA guidance notes there will likely be a need for an occupational therapist on the committee to address all required evaluation areas — particularly graphomotor function and fine motor contributions to handwriting.

Source: Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024), p. 60; 19 TAC §89.1040(b)

Dysgraphia Is NOT — Exclusionary Criteria

🚫 Conditions That Do Not Constitute Dysgraphia

The Texas Dyslexia Handbook (pp. 55–56) explicitly defines what dysgraphia is not. These exclusions matter for eligibility determinations where co-occurring conditions could explain handwriting difficulties through a different mechanism. Dysgraphia is not:

✗Evidence of a damaged motor nervous system — neurological motor damage is a distinct etiology from the neurodevelopmental orthographic/graphomotor deficit pattern of dysgraphia

✗Part of a developmental disability that has fine motor deficits — e.g., Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Cerebral Palsy. Writing difficulties in these populations are explained by the broader condition and are not standalone dysgraphia.

✗Secondary to a medical condition — e.g., meningitis, significant head trauma, or acquired brain injury

✗Associated with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) — DCD involves generalized developmental motor/coordination difficulties; dysgraphia is writing-specific

✗Impaired spelling or written expression with typical handwriting — if handwriting legibility and rate are within normal limits, the writing/spelling difficulties reflect a different pattern. Dysgraphia requires a handwriting deficit as the primary characteristic. (Berninger, 2004)

Dual eligibility nuance: A student may have both a co-occurring condition (e.g., ASD or ID) AND dysgraphia — but only when the writing-specific deficit exceeds what the co-occurring condition alone would predict, and is rooted in a graphomotor or orthographic processing mechanism distinct from the broader motor or developmental profile. Address this distinction explicitly in Q2 of the Dysgraphia Determination section of the FIE.

Source: Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024), pp. 55–56; Berninger (2004)

Assessment Data Sources

📊 Norm-Referenced

Graphomotor/Handwriting:

WIAT-IV Alphabet Writing Fluency Beery VMI TVPS OT Motor Coordination Assessment

Orthographic Processing:

TOC (Test of Orthographic Competence) WIAT-IV Orthographic Fluency WIAT-IV Spelling KTEA-3 Spelling WJ-V Spelling

Written Expression / Composition:

WIAT-IV Written Expression WIAT-IV Sentence Composition KTEA-3 Written Language WJ-V Written Expression cluster

📋 Informal / Clinical

Alphabet Writing Fluency (informal): Ask student to write the alphabet in 1 minute. Count letters written. Below-average rate for age is a strong indicator of graphomotor inefficiency. Conduct dynamic assessment — prompt student to continue after time to assess what they know vs. what they can produce under speed demands.

Copy vs. Dictation Comparison: Compare quality of copied sentence vs. dictated sentence. Note whether legibility, spacing, or formation improves with a model present.

Writing Sample Analysis: Collect samples across conditions — structured prompt, free write, preferred topic, timed vs. untimed. Analyze for volume, legibility, spelling error type, and organizational quality.

Examiner Writing Observation Form: Document grip, posture, pencil pressure, paper placement, erasure patterns, letter formation, spacing, size consistency, baseline adherence, and fatigue indicators.

ESC Region 11 Dysgraphia Examiner's Observation Form available via Aimee Seaberry ([email protected])

🔍 Spelling Error Analysis

Analyze unedited spelling errors from writing samples and formal tasks. Identify the primary error type to differentiate underlying mechanism:

Orthographic errors — Correct phonology, wrong letter sequences or whole-word forms. Points to orthographic storage/retrieval deficit.
Phonological errors — Attempt does not preserve phonological structure. Points to phonological processing deficit (dyslexia profile).
Orthographic letter formation errors — Correct spelling attempt, letters illegible or formed incorrectly. Points to graphomotor deficit.
Morphological errors — Difficulty with prefixes, suffixes, base words. Points to language-based or DLD profile.

Multiple error types can coexist. Pattern across multiple samples matters more than isolated errors. Error analysis directly informs both eligibility framing and instructional targets.

Framework: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Berninger & Wolf (2009)

Why Transcription Automaticity Matters — The WM Connection

🧠 The Cognitive Load Cascade

When transcription skills are not automatic, every act of forming a letter or retrieving a spelling requires conscious cognitive effort. This places increased demand on working memory and executive functioning, producing a predictable cascade:

Reduced writing fluency — output is slow and effortful
Difficulty sustaining output — student fatigues quickly; writing quality degrades over time
Limited organization and idea development — cognitive resources consumed by transcription leave nothing for planning, organizing, and elaborating ideas
Apparent WM/attention weakness — secondary to transcription overload, not necessarily a primary deficit

Key distinction: Working memory is often the first system to collapse under inefficient transcription demands — not necessarily the primary deficit. This matters for eligibility determination: apparent WM/EF collapse during writing does not automatically indicate OHI-ADHD if it resolves when transcription demands are removed (e.g., typing, scribe, dictation).

Source: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Wolf & Berninger (2018)

📈 Developmental Writing Stages

Automaticity of basic transcription skills must be intact before executive functions can direct energy to composition. Based on Wolf & Berninger (2018):

Imitation (PK–1st)
Scribbles showing directionality; imitating writing movements

Graphic Presentation (K–2nd)
Forming recognizable letters; letter-sound connections emerging

Progressive Incorporation (2nd–4th)
Integrating spelling, sentence structure, and composition; transcription becoming more fluent

Automatization (4th–7th)
Legible letters produced automatically; improved fluency frees working memory for written composition

Elaboration (7th–9th)
Writing is sufficiently automatic and organized to be used as a tool for learning and influencing others

Personalization-Diversification (9th+)
Individual writing style develops; students who find writing too difficult may never reach this stage

Clinical implication: A student who has not reached automatization by 4th grade has a persistent transcription deficit that will constrain composition quality through middle and high school — even with adequate language ability and intelligence. Stages 5 and 6 (Elaboration and Personalization-Diversification) depend entirely on Automatization being achieved first. A middle schooler who never automatized print is also developmentally behind in the capacity to use writing as a thinking tool — not just a mechanical one.

Sources: Wolf & Berninger (2018); TEA Texas Dyslexia Academy 6 (2024)

ADHD & Dysgraphia — High Overlap, Distinct Mechanisms

⚡ Co-occurrence and Differentiation

A large study of 1,034 referred children (ages 6–16) found that approximately 56–61% of students with ADHD also met criteria for dysgraphia or showed graphomotor weaknesses, with graphomotor weaknesses relative to IQ observed in over 90% of this population. Co-occurrence is the norm, not the exception.

Despite this overlap, the mechanisms are distinct and both may independently contribute to educational need:

Dimension	Dysgraphia	OHI — ADHD (writing impact)
Primary mechanism	Graphomotor deficit and/or orthographic processing deficit — writing-specific learning	Attention, executive self-regulation, working memory — access and regulation
Writing across conditions	Consistently weak regardless of interest, support level, or environmental structure	Variable — improves meaningfully with interest, structure, verbal rehearsal, movement breaks
Copy vs. dictation	Copy does not improve (graphomotor) or inconsistent letter forms (orthographic)	Copy typically improves handwriting quality
Response to OT/handwriting intervention	Progress is slow and requires intensive, explicit handwriting instruction targeting motor patterns	May respond more readily once attention/regulation is supported
Cognitive testing presentation	Deficits evident even in structured 1:1 testing (orthographic fluency, alphabet fluency)	Deficits often do not appear on cognitive testing due to structured testing environment
Dual eligibility appropriate?	Yes — when both conditions independently contribute to educational need. Document each disability's independent contribution to writing difficulties. Both SLD-Written Expression (dysgraphia) + OHI-ADHD may be appropriate.

Sources: Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025); Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2006). Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 145–157. [56–61% ADHD+dysgraphia overlap; graphomotor weakness relative to IQ in 90%+ of referred sample — verify against Seaberry handout; alt. candidate: Adi-Japha et al.]

🤠

Texas Policy — Dysgraphia & SLD-Written Expression

Dysgraphia can be identified within the SLD-Written Expression category under Texas TAC §89.1040, or can serve as the sole basis for SLD eligibility — a student does not need co-occurring dyslexia or another SLD area to qualify. Students are reported under the SLD eligibility category, but dysgraphia alone in the Written Expression area is sufficient to establish that eligibility. The purpose of naming dysgraphia specifically is to describe the pattern of need, guide intervention decisions (OT vs. structured literacy vs. both), and ensure the ARD committee understands what is and is not working.

HB 3928 (88th Leg., 2023) clarified that dyslexia — and by reasonable extension, dysgraphia — can be listed on its own as the area of SLD identified, without requiring a broader SLD label across multiple achievement areas. This is further supported by the OSERS Dear Colleague Letter (October 23, 2015), which clarified that nothing in IDEA prohibits the use of the terms dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia in evaluation reports, eligibility determinations, and IEP documents.

The Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024) addresses dysgraphia explicitly at p. 61–64. Identification requires evidence of graphomotor and/or orthographic processing deficits that are unexpected for age given adequate instruction — the same "unexpected" standard that applies to dyslexia identification.

OT involvement: TEA SLD guidance (2025) notes that an occupational therapist should be included on the MDT when graphomotor deficits are suspected. OT assessment (Beery VMI, motor coordination measures) provides important convergent data and informs service recommendations.

Sources: Texas Dyslexia Handbook (2024) pp. 61–64; TEA Guidance for Comprehensive Evaluation of SLD (January 2025); HB 3928 FAQ (TEA, 2023); OSERS Dear Colleague Letter (October 23, 2015); Seaberry, ESC Region 11 (2025)

Dysgraphia Reference

Texas Policy — Dysgraphia & SLD-Written Expression