Social participation by children with developmental coordination disorder compared to their peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two objectives are being pursued: (1) to describe and compare the level of social participation of children aged 5-13 with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) to children of the same age with typical development (TD) and (2) to describe and compare the level of social participation of two subgroups of youths with DCD, e.g. children with dyspraxia affecting both the motor sphere and the verbal sphere (mixed dyspraxia) and children with developmental dyspraxia. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 27 youngsters with DCD: 9 having developmental dyspraxia and 18 having mixed dyspraxia, compared to 27 same-age peers with TD. Life habits (LIFE-H) for children was used to measure social participation. RESULTS: Levels of lifestyle achievements among youngsters with DCD are significantly lower than those of TD youngsters in all categories. Noteworthy differences were found between subgroups of youngsters with DCD in the categories of life habits related to communication and education. The group with mixed dyspraxia obtained the lowest scores. CONCLUSIONS: The achievement of a normal lifestyle by youngsters with DCD is upset in all spheres of life. The impact of DCD on the level of participation of these youngsters is quite significant and affects all lifestyles measured in this study. Children with mixed dyspraxia are particularly affected. These facts must be taken into consideration by anyone involved in the lives of these youngsters. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: It is necessary to encourage social participation of DCD sufferers aged 5-13 in all spheres of life. Special attention should be paid to those who have a speech disorder. Life habits concerning communication and education may be related; greater efforts should be made to limit the negative impact on other lifestyles. Social participation of DCD sufferers should be measured periodically and appropriate resources must be made available to promote training and support for clinicians. It is important to provide tools to measure social participation for both stakeholders and parents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".