Descriptive Analysis of
the Developmental
Progression of Grip
Position for Pencil and
Crayon Control in
Nondysfunctional
Children
Colleen M. Schneck, Anne Henderson
Key Words: child development. gross and
fine motor evaluation. hand functions
This study was designed to investigate the develop-
mental progression in pencil and crayon grip. The
subjects were 320 nondysfunctional children aged
3 0 to 611 years, with 20 boys and 20 girls at each
6-month age interval. On the basis of a review of the
literature, developmental pencil and crayon grtpS
were defined for the study, and the type ofgrips
each child used to peljorm a drawing task and a
coloring task were recorded. Many children at each
age level used mature pencil grtps. A developmental
progression, however, was shown by the percentage
change 0/ children at each age level who used ma-
ture grips. Forty-eight percent of the youngest group
used mature grtPS, compared with 90% of the oldest
children. Two pencil grips-dynamic and lateral
tripod-appear to be common in older children.
Differences in the developmental progression ofpen-
cil gnp were noted between boys and girls and be-
tween a draWing task and a coloring task.
Colleen M. Schneck, SeD, OTR/L, is Senior Occupational
Therapist, The Eclucation Center at D. T. Watson, Sewick-
ley, Pennsylvania, and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Occu-
pational Therapy, School of Allied Health Professions,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261.
At the time of this study, she was a doctoral student at
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anne Henderson, PhD, OTR, fAOTA, is Professor of Occupa-
tional Therapy, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
This article was accepted for publication February 21, 1990
Tbe Amerlcall.!ournal of Occupational Tberapy
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
ccupational therapists regularly assess and
O treat children with fine motor problems;
these children are often referred due to
handwriting difficulties. Although handwriting is an
important aspect of fine motor ability, our limited
knowledge of the development of handwriting skill in
the nondysfunctional child interferes with effective
evaluation of handwriting deficits. An important
aspect of handwriting with which occupational thera-
pists are concerned is pencil.grip. The knowledge of
age-related changes in pencil grip and arm posture is
fragmented and incomplete. Information on the de-
velopment of pencil grip shows that there is a devel-
opmental progression, with changes continuing to
occur until approximately 10.5 years of age (Ziviani,
1983). The evidence identifying the ages at which
developmental levels of pencil grip are achieved,
however, is incomplete, and the studies are not com-
parable due to the different age ranges studied (Ro-
senbloom & Horton, 1971; Saida & Myashita, 1979)
Furthermore, different authors have used different
terms to describe similar or identical grips.
In 1931, Halverson conducted a thorough study
of the development of the motor components of pre-
hension leading to handwriting as well as all other
functional fine motOr skills. He observed the charac-
teristic position of the arm, hand, and fingers of chil-
dren at successive stages of early development. He
reported both a progression from a banging move-
ment of the arm to controlled, discrete finger move-
ments and a progression from a small child's fisted
grip of the pencil to the fingertip grip seen in adults.
The adult fingertip grip described by Halverson was
termed the dynamic tripod grasp by Wynn-Parry
(1966). Recent studies of the acqUisition of the tripod
grip (Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971; Saida & Myashita,
1979) have conlirmed the sequence described by
Halverson but suggested that the stages of develop-
ment of pencil grip are achieved earlier than he
reported.
Rosenbloom and Horton (1971) studied the de-
velopment of pencil grip, incluuing the development
of the tripod grasp, in 128 British children between
the ages of 1.6 and 7.0 years. The tripod grasp was
described as a finger posture in which the pencil is
resting on the distal aspect of the middle finger while
being controlled between the pads of the thumb and
index linger. Pencil grip was seen to develop in three
stages: (a) a p;llmar grasp with the index finger ex-
tended along the pencil shaft, (b) a static tripod grasp
(i.e., the tripod posture of the fingers is acqUired, but
the intrinsic components of movement are not), and
(c) a dynamic tripod grasp (the three fingers func-
tioning together are able to make small, highly coor-
dinated movements).
893
 This study was replicated by Saida and Myashica
(1979) in japan with 154 children between the ages of
2.3 and 6.5 years. Their subjects did not demonstrate
the palmar grasp with the index finger extended, as
observed by Rosenbloom and Horton (1971), possi-
blybecause Rosenbloom and Horton's subjects were
younger. Saida and Myashita's (1979) description of
pencil prehension identified the following four
stages, which involved only supinate postures: (a) a
palmar grasp, (b) any variety of transitional grasps
preceding the tripod grasp by the thumb and two ra-
dial digits, (c) a static tripod grasp, and (d) a dynamic
tripod grasp. Direct comparison of these two studies
(Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971; Saida & Myashita,
1979) is not possible, because the ages of the subjects
and the grip classifications differed It is interesting to
note, however, that although the japanese children
were older, the median age for dynamic tripod devel-
opment was 4.11 years for the japanese children and
5.5 years for the British children.
The first author (Schneck, 1987) observed all of
the grips reported by Rosenbloom and Horton (1971)
and Saida and Myashita (1979) as well as three other
transitional grips: (a) the cross thumb grasp (mean
age = 4.6 years), (b) the four fingers grasp (mean age
= 4.8 years), and (c) the lateral tripod grasp (mean
age = 4.8 years). The age range studied was not, how-
ever, wide enough to accurately determine the devel-
opmental order.
Dynamic tripod grasp continues to undergo mod-
ification in school-age children Ziviani (1983) stud-
ied finger posture and forearm position in the dy-
namic tripod grasp in 287 nondysfunctional Australian
children between 7 and 14 years of age. By photo-
graphing grip posture, Ziviani determined that two of
the components of tripod grasp did not change with
age: pad-to-pad opposition and the number of fingers
positioned on the pencil shaft. Two other compo-
nents of the dynamic tripod grasp did, however, show
developmental changes in these older children. In
children under 10.5 years of age, proXimal interpha-
langeal flexion was greater than 90°, whereas after
that age it was less than 90°. The degree of forearm
pronation also decreased, from greater than 45° in
children under 9.5 years of age to less than 45° after
9.5 years of age.
Goodgold (1983) evaluated the development of
arm function as well as grip in pencil use in preschool
and kindergarten children. A handwriting movement
assessment was devised to assess grip, posture, upper
extremity control in the formation of symbols and in
the movement across the paper, and fluency and
speed in the sequence of movements Pencil grip was
divided into four stages with no separation of the dy-
namic and static tripod grasps: (a) fisted hand, (b)
894
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
palmar grasp, (c) opposition of thumb and finger vari·
ations, and (d) pencil held with tip of three radial
fingers. Goodgold found a developmental trend in
preschool children's acquisition of handwriting
movement skills.
A person's sex may also influence grip. Conflict·
ing findings have been reported on the differences
between boys and girls in the development of pencil
grip. Rosenbloom and Horton (1971), Goodgold
(1983), and Schneck (1987) did not find significant
sex differences in their studies and therefore grouped
all subjects together for the data analysis. Saida and
Myashita (1979), however, did report sex differences
in japanese children, but only in the 3-year-old group,
in which girls demonstrated more mature grips earlier
than boys. Possibly, sex differences have not been
found in the other studies because few or no 3-year·
old children were included in the samples. Ziviani
(1983) also found sex differences, such that girls be·
tween the ages of 6.8 and 9.9 years were more likely
to demonstrate hyperextension of the distal interpha·
langeal joint of the index finger, together with 90° or
more of flexion of the proximal interphalangeal joint,
than were boys of the same age. Sex differences were
also noted in the degree of forearm pronation, with
young boys more likely than like-aged girls to show a
greater degree of forearm supination. Ziviani sug-
gested that this may be due to boys not applying as
much pressure as girls when writing, thus allOWing
the forearm to relax in [he more supinated posture.
Another factor that may influence whether a static
or dynamic tripod grasp is used is the type of task the
child is requested to perform. In Saida and Myashita's
(1979) study, the children were instructed to trace
rectangles of 13 cm by 15 cm. This size rectangle does
not require the fine movement use of a dynamic tripod
grasp, but rather, can be completed with wrist and fore-
arm movement. The grip used may have been related
to task variables (e.g., the size of the object to be drawn
or copied or the implement used for drawing). For
example, children may use different grips for a smaller
draWing task than for a larger coloring task.
The present study was designed to clarify some of
the findings on the development of pencil and crayon
grip in American preschool and school·age children,
including the influence of sex and task on that devel-
opment; to improve existing studies by controlling
seating position; and to further extend this informa-
tion by increasing the number of grip categories. The
specific purposes of this study were (a) to describe
the developmental progreSSion of grip position for
pencil and crayon control in nondysfunctional chil-
dren, (b) to describe and compare the grips used for
pencil and crayon use, and (c) to compare this devel-
opment in girls and boys.
October 1990, Volume 44, Number 10
 Method
Subjects
The subjects of this study were 320 oondysfuoctional
children, categorized by the following age ranges: 30
to 35 years, 3.6 to 3.11 years, 4.0 to 45 years, 4.6 to
4.11 years, 5.0 to 55 years, 5.6 to 5.11 years, 6.0 to 65
years, and 6.6 to 6.11 years. Each age group consisted
of 20 boys and 20 girls. Children from day-care
centers, preschools, and elementary schools in the
greater Boston and Pittsburgh areas with no learning,
physical, or behavioral problems, as reported by their
caretaker or classroom teacher, participated in this
study. Children from school districts who had similar
entry ages for kindergarten were included.
Procedure
On the basis of a review of the literature, a develop-
mental scale of pencil and crayon grips that assessed
the components of grip and arm posture was devel-
oped. Eleven grips were described in the literature
and were included in the scale. One of these grips
(interdigital), however, was not observed in any of
the children in preliminary investigations and was
therefore excluded. The definitions of the 10 grips
used in thiS study, in developmental order, are as fol-
lows (see also Figure 1 for illustrations of these
grips) :
• Radial cross palmar grasp-Pencil positioned
across palm projecting radially, held with fisted
hand, forearm fully pronated, full arm move-
ment (Morrison, 1978).
• Palmar supinate grasp-Pencil positioned
across palm projecting ulnarly, held with fisted
hand, wrist slightly flexed and supinated away
from midposition, full arm movement (Erhardt,
1984).
• Digital pronate grasp, only index finger ex-
tended-Pencil held in palmar grasp with
index finger extended along pencil toward tip,
arm not supported on table, full arm movement
(Morrison, 1978).
• Brush grasp-Pencil held with fingers, eraser
end of pencil positioned against palm, hand
pronated with wrist movement present, whole
arm movement, forearm positioned in air
• Grasp with extended fingers-Pencil held with
fingers, wrist straight and pronated with slight
ulnar deviation, forearm moves as a unit.
• 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).
• Static tnpod grasp-Pencil stabilized against
radial side of third digit by thumb pulp with

\] ~6
~<:f/
~ ~' fv/ (flY
~ \~o/
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Figure 1. Operational definitions of grip posture in developmental order: (a) radial cross palmar grasp (Morrison, 1978); (b) palmar
supinate grasp (Erhardt, 1984); (c) digital pronate grasp, only index finger extended (Morrison, 1984); (d) brush grasp; (e) grasp with
extended fingers; (f) cross thumb grasp (Gesell, 1940); (g) static tripod grasp (Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971); (h) four fingers grasp; (i)
lateral tripod grasp (Schneck, 1987); (j) dynamic tripod grasp (Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971)

The American./ournal of Occupational Therapy 895

Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms

 index pulp on top of shaft, thumb stabilized in
full opposition, wrist slightly extended and
hand moving as a unit, pencil resting in open
web space, forearm resting on table (Rosen-
bloom & Honon, 1971).
• Four fingers grasp-Pencil held with four
fingers in opposition, wrist and finger move-
ment, forearm positioned on table.
• Lateral tripod grasp-Pencil stabilized against
radial side of third digit with index pulp on top
of shaft of pencil, thu mb addueted and braced
over or under anywhere along lateral borcler of
index finger, wrist slightly extended, fourth
and fifth digits flexed to stabilize metacarpo-
phalangeal arch and third digit, localized
movement of digits of tripod and wrist move-
ments on tall and horizontal strokes, forearm
resting on table (Schneck, 1987).
• 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 movements on tall and horizontal
strokes, forearm resting on table (Rosenbloom
& Honon, 1971).
The type of grip the child used to perform each of two
tasks was recorded during two trials of each task. The
tasks consisted of drawing and coloring tasks. For
each task, the paper was presented at the child's mid-
line and the pencil or crayon was placed on top of the
paper vertical to the child's body
For the drawing task, the child was presented
with a 5 cm by 5 cm piece of paper. The child was
then given a sharpened No.2 pencil and instructed to
draw one of several shapes, depending on his or her
age. These shapes were (a) a circle (ages 30 to 311
years), (b) a cross (ages 4.0 to 45 years), (c) a square
(ages 4.6 to 4.11 years), (d) a triangle (ages 5.0 to 5.5
years), and (e) a diamond (ages 5.6 to 6.11 years). For
the coloring task, the child was presented with a piece
of paper with two 9 cm diameter circles. On the first
trial, the child performed the drawing task and was
given a regular-size crayon and instructed to color the
bottom circle. On the second trial, the child was pre-
sented with a new sheet of paper to repeat the draw-
ing task and was instructed to color the top circle.
Hand preference was measured by the Lateral
Consistency Test, adapted from Lyle (976). (A de-
scription of this test and the results for the subjects in
the present study are reported in Schneck, 1989).
The researcher (the first author) tested each
896
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
child in the classroom setting in one 10-min session.
The child was positioned appropriately in 3 Tripp
Trapp Chair 1 with desk height at elbow level. The
child was requested to perform the t\VO tasks de-
scribed above, drawing for finer movements and col-
oring for gross movements, while grip and posture
were observed and recorded. The child performed
two trials for each of the two tasks, although only the
second trial was used to analyze the data These tasks
were presented in a counterbalanced order with the
Lateral Consistency Test separating the two trials. The
four orders were (a) coloring task, draWing task, Lat-
eral Consistency Test, coloring task, drawing task; (b)
draWing task, coloring task, Lateral Consistency Test,
draWing task, coloring task; (c) drawing task, coloring
task, Lateral Consistency Test, coloring task, draWing
task; and (d) coloring task, drawing task, Lateral Con-
sistency Test, drawing task, coloring task.
Interrater reliability between the researcher (the
first author) and an experienced, trained therapist for
assessing the children's grips was .90 in a pilot inves-
tigation of 30 children (Schneck, 1987). Test-retest
reliability was determined on the grips used for
draWing and coloring. The researcher readministered
the test after 1 week to 20 of the children; 85% re-
ceived the same score on both the draWing and color-
ing tasks as they had the previous week.
Results
On the first trial, the children were familiarizing
themselves with the procedure. The second trial,
therefore, was considered more reliable and was used
for data analysis.
Drawing
The number and percentage of children at each age
level who demonstrated the various pencil grips in
draWing are presented in Table 1. The first five grips-
radial cross palmar; palmar supinate; digital pronate,
only index finger extended; brush grasp; and grasp
with extended fingers-were classified as primitive
grips, because they were seen infrequently after age 4
years. The cross thumb, static tripod, and four fingers
grips appeared to be transitional; their use continued
into the sixth year of age. The dynamiC tripod is the
commonly accepted adult grip, but we also classified
the lateral tripod as mature because we observed it in
many of the oldest children studied.
The data show that large percentages of children
at all of the age levels studied used mature pencil
grips. In all groups, with the exception oftbe children
aged 3.6 to 3.11 years, the dynamic tripod was the
'Available from the Equipment Shop, Bedford, MA 01730.
October 1.990, Volume 44, Number 10
 Table 1
Number and Percentage of Children Using Pencil Grips in the Drawing Task (N = 320)
Age in Years
Grip 30-35 36-311 40-4.5 4.6-4.11 50-5.5 56-511 6.0-6.5 66-6.11
Primitive grips
Radial cross palmar 1 (2.5%) 1 (25%)
Palmar supinate 6 (150%) 5 (12.5%) 1 (25%) 1 (2 5%)
Digital pronate,
only index
finger extended 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%)
Brush 2 (5.0%) 1 (25%)
Grasp with
extended fingers 3 (7.5%) 3 (7.5%) 3 (7.5%) 2 (50%)
Transitional grips
Cross thumb 3 (75%) 2 (5.0%) 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
Static tripod 2 (5.0%) 9 (225%) 8 (20.0%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 4 (10.0%) 2 (5.0%) 1 (2.5%)
Four fingers 5 (12.5%) 4 (10.0%) 4 (10.0%) 9 (225%) 2 (5.0%) 5 (125%) 2 (5.0%) 1 (2.5%)
Mature grips
Lateral tripod 3 (75%) 4 (10.0%) 4 (10.0%) 7 (17.5%) 10 (25.0%) 10 (250%) 11 (275%) 9 (225%)
Dynamic tripod 16 (40.0%) 9 (22.5%) 16 (400%) 19 (475%) 21 (525%) 21 (52.5%) 25 (625%) 29 (72.5%)
Note. Each age group consisted of 20 boys and 20 girls.

most common grip demonstrated. Nevertheless, a de-
velopmental progression can be noted, both through
the decrease in the use of the primitive and the tran-
sitional grips and in the increase in the use of the two
mature grips. Use of the dynamic and lateral tripod
grips increased from a combined percentage of 475%
in the youngest children to 95% in the oldest
children.
Table 2 shows the difference in grips among the
girls and boys. Although the general developmental
trends are similar, more girls showed mature grips
than did boys. Only 9 of the total sample of girls llsed
one of the primitive grips, whereas 26 boys, including
more than half of the boys in the youngest age group,
used one of those five primitive grips. Within the
youngest age group, only 5 boys, compared with 14
girls, used one of the mature grips. This difference
between boys and girls was not demonstrated in the
older children. Beyond the age of 4.6 years, boys
showed mature grips as frequently as did girls. More
boys than girls used the dynamic tripod in the older
groups.
Coloring
During the administration of the coloring task, we
noted that often the children would first color the
edge of the circle using a more mature grip and then
color in the center of the circle using a less mature
grip. This was more noticeable in younger children;
older children would simply slow down to color the
edge and then continue with the same grip for the
center of the circle. We chose to analyze the grip used
to color the center of the circle.
Table 3 presents the number and percentage of
children at each age level who demonstrated the var-
ious grips in coloring. A comparison of the data shows
that the use of pencil grips is influenced by the task
for which the writing implement is used (see Tables 1
and 3). Many children used less mature grips when
coloring spaces than when drawing. The most com-
mon grip used for coloring was the static tripod grasp,
whereas for drawing, it was the dynamic tripod grasp,
which facilitates fine finger movements. For coloring
spaces, the static tripod grasp was used to stabilize the
crayon while moving the wrist, forearm, and shoulder.
We noted that more boys (77) than girls (69)
used the static tripod grasp, and more girls (35) than
boys (27) used the lateral tripod grasp for the coloring
task.
Discussion
The dynamic tripod grasp is considered by most
teachers and therapists to be ideal It was the most
common grip used in the present study at all age
levels. About one fourth of the children in each of the
four highest age levels, however, used the lateral tri-
pod grasp. Furthermore, Bergmann (1990) found that
12% of a sample of 485 adults used pencil grips other
than the dynamic tripod. The most common alternate
grip was the lateral tripod grasp, which was used by
9.3% of the adults observed. In the present study, the
ratio of lateral tripod grasp to dynamic tripod grasp
began to decrease at the two oldest age levels. We
would therefore expect the use of the lateral tripod
grasp to further decrease in older children, eventually
reaching the adult level.
Levine, Brooks, and Shonkoff (1980) noted that
children with learning disabilities used a lateral tri-
pod grasp as a maladaptive grasp, which they believed
would lead to significant problems as written volume

The American .Journal of Occupational Therapy 897

Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms

 Table 2
Number and Percentage of Girls and Boys Using Pencil Grips in the Drawing Task
Age in Years
Grip 30-35 3.6-311 4.0-4.5 46-411 5.0-5.5 5.6-511 60-65 66-6.11
GIRLS (n = 160)
Primitive grips
Radial cross palmar 1 (50%)
Palmar supinate 1 (5.0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 1 (5.0%)
Digital pronate,
only index
finger extended
Brush
Grasp with
extended fingers 2 (100%) 1 (5.0%) 1 (50%)
Transitional grips
Cross thumb 1 (5.0%) 2 (10.0%)
Static tripod 3(15.0%) 2 (100%) 1 (5.0%) 4 (200%) 1 (5.0%)
Four fingers 4 (20.0%) 3 (150%) 3 (J 50%) 5 (250%) 2 (10.0%) 1 (5.0%) 2 (10.0%) 1 (50%)
Maw re grips
Lateral tripod 3 (150%) 2 (100%) 3 (J 50%) 3 (15.0%) 5 (250%) 6 (300%) 7 (35.0%) 5 (25.0%)
Dynamic tripod 11 (55.0%) 8 (40.0%) 10 (500%) 10 (500%) 10 (500%) 9 (45.0%) 10 (500%) 14 (70.0%)
Boys (n = 160)
Primitive grips
Radial cross palmar 1 (5.0%)
Palmar supinate 5 (25.0%) 4 (200%)
Digital pronate,
only index
finger extended 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (10.0%)
Brush 2 (100%) 1 (50%)
Grasp with
extended fingers 3 (15.0%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 1 (5.0%)
Transitional grips
Cross thumb 2 (100%) 2 (10.0%) 1 (5.0%) 1 (5.0%)
Static tripod 2 (10.0%) 6(30.0%) 6 (300%) 2 (100%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 1 (5.0%)
Four fingers 1 (5.0%) 1 (5.0%) 1 (5.0%) 4 (200%) 4 (20.0%)
Mature grips
Lateral tripod 2 (100%) 1 (5.0%) 4 (20.0%) 5 (25.0%) 4 (200%) 4 (200%) 4 (20.0%)
Dynamic tripod 5 (25.0%) 1 (5.0%) 6 (30.0%) 9 (45.0%) 11 (55.0%) 12 (60.0%) 15 (750%) 15 (750%)
Note For both girls and boys, each age group consisted of 20 children.

and time constraints increased in later school grades.
Bergmann's (1990) study, as well as the present study,
indicate that, until further studies are conducted, the
lateral tripod grasp should be considered an accept­
able alternative to the dynamic tripod grasp. It should
also be noted that two studies (Jaffe, 1987; Ziviani &
Elkins, 1986) have failed to show that pencil grip is
related to skill in handwriting.
Ziviani and Elkins (1986) studied children 7 to 14
years of age and found four major variations within the
dynamic tripod grasp. They concluded that the em­
phasis placed on "correct" pencil grip may be unwar­
ranted. Jaffe (1987), in a study of nondysfunctional
adUlts, supported Ziviani's (1983) conjecture that
there is little difference in handwriting with pencil
grip as a group criterion. Comparisons of nondys­
functional adults with a dynamic tripod grasp and
versus those with nontripod grasps showed that there
were no differences in legibility, fatigue, or strength
in a handwriting task (Jaffe, 1987)
In the present study, some of the children in the
age group of 3.6 to 3.11 years (the youngest age group
tested was 3.0 to 3.5 years) had achieved tripod
grasps. The static tripod grasp was first noted at 2.7
years of age (the youngest age group tested was 1.6
years) for the British children (Rosenbloom & Hor­
ton, 1971) and 25 years of age (the youngest age
group tested was 2.3 years) for the Japanese children
(Saida & Myashita, 1979). The earlie'st achievers of the
dynamic tripod grasp were 4.0 years old for the British
children (Rosenbloom & Honon, 1971), 2.11 years
old for the Japanese children (Saida & Myashita,
1979), and 3.0 years old for the American children in
the present study. Saida and Myashita attributed early
development of the dynamic tripod grasp in Japanese
children to the use of chopsticks, whose use requires
fine, dexterous movements. Although American chil­
dren have no such tool that can be identified with the
early development of fine, dexterous movements,
they did develop the dynamic tripod grasp at about

898 October ]990, Volume 44, Number ]0

Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 Table 3

Number and Percentage of Children Using Pencil Grips to Color the Center of the Circle (N = 320)

Age in Years
Grip 30-3.5 36-311 40-45 46-411 50-5.5 56-5,11 60-6.5 6.6-6,11
Primitive grips
Radial cross
palmar 1 (25%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Palmar supinate 3 (7.5%) 3 (7.5%) 2 (50%)
Digital pronate,
only index
linger
extended 4 (10,0%) 8 (200%) 2 (5,0%) 4 (100%) 1 (25%) 1 (2 5%) 1 (25%)

Brush 1 (25%) 1 (2.5%)

Grasp with
extended
lingers 2 (50%) 4 (100%) 2 (50%) 1 (2.5%) 2 (50%)
Transitional grips
Cross thumb 1 (2,5%) 1 (2,5%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 1 (25%)
Static tripod 16 (400%) 14 (350%) 21 (52,5%) 17 (42,5%) 17 (425%) 16 (40.0%) 20 (50.0%) 25 (625%)
Four lingers 8 (20,0%) 4 (100%) 4 (10,0%) 10 (25.0%) 2 (5,0%) 8 (20,0%) 2 (5,0%) 2 (5,0%)
Mature grips
Lateral tripod 4 (10.0%) 4 (10,0%) 6 (15,0%) 4 (100%) 13 (32,5%) 9 (22.5%) 11 (27.5%) 11 (27.5%)
Dynamic tripod 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 3 (75%) 3 (75%) 5 (12.5%) 2 (5.0%)
Note, Each age group consisted of 20 boys and 20 girls,

the same age as the Japanese children, Future studies,
therefore, must include even younger children in
order to fully outline the development of pencil grip
in American children.
The data show that there is a high degree of vari­
ability both in the age at which children achieve ma­
ture pencil grip and in the variety of immature and
transitional grips they select. Although all of the grips
studied can be observed in the grips of young chil­
dren, it is clear that not all children use every grip, A
developmental progression from immature to transi­
tional to mature grips does not seem a reasonable
expectation, but longitudinal studies beginning at age
1 or 2 years will be needed to accurately determine
this sequence,
The findings of the present study do not indicate
the reasons children used different grips, but we can
pose an explanation through the differentiation of
power and precision grips, Napier (1956) suggested
that the intended nature of the activity influenced the
posture of the hand. He therefore classified grips into
two basic types, distinct in the anatomical and func­
tional sense, which he termed power and precision
grips, In a power grip, the palm and combined fingers
secure the object, while all the movement of the
grasped object comes from the proximal joints. Tn a
precision grip, the object is held pinched between the
flexor aspect of the fingers and opposed thumb and is
manipulated with the fingers, In a lateral tripod grasp,
the adducted thumb is unavailable to contribute to the
vertical elongation of the strokes usually made by the
fingers, which classifies it as a power grip. Why do
children use a power grip such as the lateral tripod
grasp to perform a precision task, as was evidenced in
this study? It appears that more girls than boys use a
power grip in both drawing and coloring tasks. Possi­
bly, girls need this power configuration more than
boys,
Elliott and Connolly (1984) found that digital
manipulation leads to economy, variety, and conve­
nience, because it is advantageous to minimize in­
volvement of the upper extremity when moving a
grasped object. This provides evidence that the dy­
namic tripod grasp, which involves digital manipula­
tion, would be the most efficient for handwriting and
that less mature grips may lead to handwriting diffi­
culties. The belief of the superiority of the tripod
grasp, however, is based on tradition and has not,
until recently, been studied through systematic
research,
The present study has several implications for the
evaluation of children with fine motor problems,
Children 3 years of age can be expected to use pencil
grips ranging from primitive to mature, By the age of
4 V2 years, children can be expected to use transitional
or mature grips, Children 6\1;> years of age and older
typically use either the lateral tripod or the dynamic
tripod grasp,
Boys and girls seem to have different develop­
mental progressions for both drawing and coloring.
This supports Saicla and Myashita's (1979) findings of
differences by sex in 3-year-old children. We must
therefore keep sex differences in mind when evaluat­
ing children with fine motor problems.
Different measures should also be considered
when one evaluates children's grips in a coloring task

The American.!oumal a/Occupational Therapy 899

Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms

 that appears to require a more powerful grip. It is
important to evaluate differences in coloring the edge
(precision) versus the center (power) of a picture,
because younger children tend to use different grips
for each of these tasks. As children develop more re­
fined skills, however, they tend to use the same grip
for both the edge and the center of a picture.
Conclusion
Descriptions of pencil grip in children aged 3.0 to
6.11 years showed a developmental progression, as
has been shown in previous studies (Halverson, 1931;
Rosenbloom & Horton, 1971; Saida & Myashita,
1979). Two pencil grips-the dynamic tripod and the
lateral tripod grasps-appear to be used commonly as
mature grips. It is interesting to note that the lateral
tripod grasp was used by apprOXimately one fourth of
the children who demonstrated mature grips. Differ­
ences in the developmental progression of pencil
grip were noted between boys and girls. The findings
from the present study also suggest that a different
developmental progression exists for a draWing task
than for a coloring task and that these tasks should,
therefore, be evaluated separately.....
Acknowledgments
We thank Professors Sharon Cermak and Jane Coryell of
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, for their advice
and assistance. We also thank the children who participated
in this study.
This study was supported in part through funding re­
ceived from the Dudley Allen Sargent Research Fund, Sar­
gent College of Allied Health Professions, Boston Univer­
sity, Boston, Massachusetts, and from the Maternal and
Child Health Traineeship administered through Boston
University.
This study was completed in partial fulfillment of the
first author's doctor of science degree in therapeutic studies
at Boston University.
References
Bergmann, K. (1990). Incidence of atypical pencil
grasps among nondysfunctional adults. American journal
of Occupational Therapy, 44, 736-740.
900
Downloaded From: http://ajot.aota.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ajot/930304/ on 03/22/2018 Terms of Use: http://AOTA.org/terms
Elliott, J. M., & Connolly, K. J. (1984) A classification
of manipulative hand movements. Developmental Medicine
and Cbild Neurology, 26, 283-296.
Erhardt, R. P. (1984). Erhardt Developmental Prehen­
sion Assessment. Laurel, MD: RAMSCO.
Gesell, A. (1940). Thefirstfive years of life. New York
Harper & Row.
Goodgold, S. A. (1983). Handwriting movement qual­
ity in prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Archives
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 64,471-475.
Halverson, H. M. (1931). An experimental study of
prehension in infants by means of systematic cinema rec­
ords. Genetic Psychology Monograph, 10, 107-284.
Jaffe, L. (1987). Influences of gnp on legibility, speed,
and fatigue in adult handwriting. Unpublished manu­
script.
Levine, M., Brooks, R., & Shonkoff, R. P. (1980). A
pediatric approach to learning disorders. New York: Wiley.
Lyle, J. (1976). Development of lateral consistency and
its relation to reading and reversals. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 43, 695-698.
Morrison, A. (1978). Occupational therapy for writing
difficulties in spina bifida children with myelomeningocele
and hydrocephalus. British journal of Occupational Ther­
apy, 41, 394-397
Napier, J. R. (1956). The prehensile movements of the
human hand. journal of Bone and joint Surgery, 38B,
902-913.
Rosenbloom, L., & Horton, M. E. (1971). The matura­
tion of fine prehension in young children. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 13, 3-8.
Saida, Y., & Myashita, M. (1979). Development of fine
motor skill in children: Manipulation of a pencil in young
children aged 2-6 years old. journal ofHuman Movement
Studies, 5, 104-113.
Schneck, C. M. (1987). Developmental change in the
use of writing tools in normal 3.6 to 6 a year old children.
Unpublished manuscript.
Schneck, C. M. (1989). Developmental cbangesin the
use of writing tools in normal 3. a to 6. 11 year old children
and first-grade children with handwriting problems. Un­
published doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston,
MA
Wynn-Parry, C. B. (1966). Rehabilitation of the hand
(2nd ed.). London: Butterworth.
Ziviani, J. (1983). Qualitative changes in dynamic tri­
pod grip between 7 and 14 years of age. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 25, 778-782.
Ziviani,]., & Elkins, J. (1986). Effect of pencil grip on
handwriting speed and legibility. Educational Review, 38,
247-257.
October 1990, Volume 44, Number 10