Developmental coordination disorder, sex, and activity deficit over time: a longitudinal analysis of participation trajectories in children with and without coordination difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) are known to participate in active play less than typically developing children. However, it is not known whether the activity deficit between children with and without DCD widens or diminishes over time. METHOD: Data were obtained from a large, prospective cohort study of children (baseline n=2278, total n=2470). Motor coordination was assessed for 2083 students using the short form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Participation in organized and free-play activities was assessed using a participation questionnaire on five occasions over 3 years. Mixed-effects modelling was used to examine differences in participation over time between children with probable DCD (pDCD, n=111, 46 males, 65 females) and their typically developing peers (n=1972, 1016 males, 956 females). The mean age for the whole sample was 9 years 11 months (SD 5 mo) at assessment 1, 10 years 5 months (SD 5 mo) at assessment 2, 10 years 11 months (SD 5 mo) at assessment 3, 11 years 4 months (SD 4 mo) at assessment 4, and 11 years 11 months (SD 4 mo) at assessment 5. RESULTS: Children with pDCD reported less participation in organized and free-play activities than their typically developing peers, and these differences persisted over time. Among males, the gap in participation in free-play activities between those with DCD and typically developing children diminished substantially over time; among females, it increased slightly. INTERPRETATION: DCD is associated with a persistent activity deficit in children. Its effect on participation appears to be particularly serious among females but may diminish with time among males.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".