Mixed Dominance and Cross-Dominance: What It Does and Doesn't Mean

By Laura Lurns · Reviewed by Philip Weaver · Last reviewed 2026-10-13

What the words mean

People use these words loosely. They do not mean the same thing to every writer.

The American Psychological Association has a dictionary of psychology. Its entries were last corrected in 2018. It defines two nearby terms, mixed laterality and crossed dominance. Mixed laterality means switching sides. A person favors the right for some acts and the left for others. Crossed dominance is a right-handed person with a stronger left eye, or the reverse. The dictionary has no entry for "mixed dominance" or "cross-dominance."

One review looked at how the words are used today (Ferrero and colleagues, 2017). It says "mixed dominance" now usually means no clear favorite within one body part. A child with no clear favorite hand is one example. Some researchers also say crossed laterality. That means any mix across hand, eye, foot or ear.

On our pages, these words describe which side a person favors. They are not a diagnosis, and not a type of child.

Hand preference in young children

One review looked at how children come to favor a hand (Scharoun and Bryden, 2014). It says young children's hand preference is often weak and changeable. It gives no age at which a preference should be settled. We read its summary and two short passages.

So a young child who uses both hands is not unusual. Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

Which eye is "dominant" depends on the test

Cross-dominance depends on knowing which eye is dominant. That is harder than it sounds.

One review asked what the dominant eye actually does (Mapp and colleagues, 2003). The authors said its job is still unknown.

A later study gave 40 adults two eye tests (García-Pérez and Peli, 2019). The two tests agreed on the dominant eye for only 11 of them. For 14, the tests named opposite eyes.

Both studies were of adults, not children. We could read only their summaries. So whether a child counts as cross-dominant can depend on the eye test used. This page gives no home test for eye dominance, for that reason.

One review of crossed sides and schoolwork

One review pooled 26 studies of 3,578 children (Ferrero and colleagues, 2017). The studies looked at crossed sides. That means hand, eye, foot or ear are not all on one side. The review found no reliable link with how children did at school. It found no reliable link with intelligence either.

Twenty-three of the studies looked at reading. Most found no link. Four found that children with crossed sides read worse. Two found that they read better. Most of the studies were from the 1960s and 1970s.

We read the full review. Its authors say the studies measured sides in many different ways. An average near zero cannot rule out a small link in some groups.

Handedness and reading: a small link, not a cause

Handedness is a different question. Here the studies look at the hand alone, not the eye.

One review pooled 10 groups of children and teens (Abbondanza and colleagues, 2023). Those with language or reading trouble were a little more often not right-handed. A larger review covered 402 sets of data (Packheiser and colleagues, 2025). It compared groups with and without a diagnosis. Mixed hand use was more common in the groups with one. For both, we could read only the summary. Neither review shows that the hand causes the trouble. Neither looked at the eye.

One large study followed children born in northern Finland (Rodriguez and colleagues, 2010). It included nearly 8,000 children. Teachers, parents or the teens themselves reported on language and schoolwork. Mixed-handed children more often had trouble with language and school than right-handed children. The study looked at the hand only, not the eye. We could read only its summary.

A university press release about the study came out in 2010. It said 87 of the children were mixed-handed. In it, the lead author said most of the mixed-handed children had no such trouble.

One study measured hand preference by reaching (Hill and Bishop, 1998). Children with language or coordination difficulty preferred one hand less strongly, as groups. The test did not single out one condition. We could read only its summary.

A small group difference does not make one child's hand a sign of anything. Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

Exercises to "set" a side

Some programs try to "set" or "fix" a child's side. Ferrero and colleagues' 2017 review says these programs have never been tested in rigorous studies. Its authors saw no solid reason for schools to use them. Still less, they said, should such programs replace teaching aimed at the difficulty itself.

One older method was called patterning. The 2017 review says it aimed partly to set up dominance. A small controlled study tested patterning for a year (Sparrow and Zigler, 1978). The patterning group changed no differently from a comparison group. The children had severe intellectual disability. They lived in an institution. The study did not measure reading. We could read only its summary.

The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote about patterning in 1999. The Academy called its use unwarranted. We could read only its summary.

Keep any movement work alongside reading and handwriting teaching, not in place of it. Reading improves with reading instruction. Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it. Our page on crossing the midline has 20 activities to try as play.

Switching a child's hand

Some parents wonder whether to steer a child to one hand. The studies on this page cannot answer that for your child.

One study scanned 11 adults made to write right-handed as children (Siebner and colleagues, 2002). Their handwriting moved like the handwriting of right-handers. Their brain activity during writing still differed. A second study looked at 16 such adults (Klöppel and colleagues, 2007). Some brain areas had shifted with training, and others had not. For both, we could read only the summary.

Neither study measured learning or wellbeing. They do not show that switching harms a child. They do not show that it helps either.

Our page on crossing the midline has more on children who switch hands. Our page on dysgraphia myths covers left-handed children's handwriting. Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

What we found no study of

We found no study showing that mixed or crossed dominance causes learning trouble. We found no test that tells a parent a child's dominance is a problem. We found no study that sets a milestone for hand preference.

If schoolwork is the worry

If you are reading this because your child is struggling with reading, writing or math, our free screener starts from what you see at home. Our free screener is a set of questions you answer about what you see at home. A screener is a starting point, not a diagnosis. If your child might need formal accommodations (an IEP or 504 plan), or you suspect a vision, hearing, or medical cause, pursue a professional evaluation too — that's the only route to those supports.

When movement worries you

If movement or coordination worries you, talk to your child's doctor or the school. A therapist, such as an occupational therapist, can assess movement. A doctor rules out other causes. An international guideline on coordination trouble describes both routes (Blank and colleagues, 2019).

If only the writing worries you, start with the teacher. Handwriting improves most consistently with handwriting practice; motor work alone has not been shown to improve it.

When to ask for help

Each of these is a reason to ask for help on its own.

• Little change, even with steady practice and good teaching.
• Writing well below your child's other schoolwork.
• A teacher who raises a concern about writing.
• Extreme upset about writing.
• Complete avoidance of writing.
• Hopelessness about learning.
• Sadness or worry that lasts.
• Significant delays in speech, language or motor development.
• A skill that was there and has gone. Our position is that a lost skill goes to a doctor first, not a tutor.

If no skill has gone, start with the teacher. Say what you are seeing at home, and what you have tried. Beyond the teacher, the right person depends on what it turns out to be about. If the work is too hard, someone who works on that school skill. If worry or mood is the thing, someone who works with children's mental health. In our view, delays in speech, language or movement are worth raising with your child's doctor. In our view, if you are worried enough to ask, a professional evaluation is worth asking about.

Any talk of hurting themselves is a same-day call to your doctor or a crisis line.