Assessment of Developmental Coordination Disorder in Children Born With Extremely Low Birth Weights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no tool that is considered the "gold" standard for identifying children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and various techniques have been reported in the research literature. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of DCD in a cohort of extremely low birth weight (ELBW; birth weight ≤ 1,000g) children at age 5 years using various methods including standardized motor assessment measures, an established clinic protocol, and a parent report. We also examined the association between selected neonatal risk factors and severity of the motor impairment. Four methods were used to assess motor functioning: (1) the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement ABC); (2) a motor assessment battery, which included the Movement ABC, the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, and the Developmental Test of Visual Perception-2; (3) a Perinatal Follow-up Clinic protocol, which included the Geometric Design and the Mazes subtests of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised, the Fine and Gross Motor subscales of the Child Development Inventory, and a pediatric neuromotor exam; and (4) a parent completed questionnaire (i.e., Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ)). The prevalence of motor impairment in ELBW children was 64% on the Movement ABC, 67% on the motor assessment battery, 66% on the Perinatal Follow-up Clinic protocol, and 26% on the DCDQ. Sensitivity ranged from 36% to 100% and specificity from 65% to 92% using the Movement ABC as the reference standard. Neonatal risk factors associated with increased severity of motor impairment were bronchopulmonary dysplasia, postnatal steroids, and increasing gestational age. Children with birth weights ≤ 1,000 g are at considerable risk for motor impairment; therefore, developmental evaluations should include an assessment of motor functions. A standardized motor assessment test such as the Movement ABC appears to be the most effective and efficient means of identifying motor impairment in this high-risk population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".