A Core Stability Group Program for Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: 3 Clinical Case Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: This series of case reports documents the response of 3 children with developmental coordination disorder to a group intervention program. Summary of Key Points: The 3 children, 9–11 years old, who participated in the 6-week group exercise program, illustrate the heterogeneity of this population. Two group sessions per week and a home program included a core stability program, fitness activities, and task-specific intervention based on child-chosen goals. The effect of the program on motor skills, self-perceived adequacy for physical activity and balance, strength, and core stability activities was examined. Each child improved in 1 or more areas of motor skill, self-efficacy for physical activity, and core stability outcome measures. Possible reasons for the range of outcomes are discussed. Conclusions and Implications for Clinical Practice: Physical activity promotion in this population has the potential to improve the quality of life and reduce health risks associated with sedentary lifestyles. This case report describes a group exercise program for children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). The children improved as a result of the intervention and the authors suggest that physical activity has the potential to improve the quality of life for children with DCD.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".