Left-Handedness and Developmental Coordination Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of left-handedness in a sample of children screened for developmental coordination disorder (DCD). METHOD: Using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Short Form (BOTMP-SF), 2297 children were screened with 128 scoring at or below the fifth percentile and identified as probable cases of DCD. Using the Movement-ABC (M-ABC) and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, 30 children (24 from the DCD group, and 6 who scored above the cut-off) were randomly selected for further assessment. RESULTS: Among the students who had previously scored at or below the fifth percentile on the BOTMP-SF, 24 were evaluated. Among the 19 children who met diagnostic criteria for DCD (IQ > 70, M-ABC < 16th percentile), 37% (n = 9) were left-handed. Among children who scored at or below the fifth percentile of the M-ABC, 46% were left-handed (6/13). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of left-handedness in children with DCD suggests a possible role for cerebral lateralization in motor coordination problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".