Developmental coordination disorder and aerobic fitness: is it all in their heads or is measurement still the problem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is characterized by motor inproficiency, resulting in significant impairments in social and/or academic functioning. About 5-9% of all school-age children are affected. Previous research has shown that children with DCD have lower aerobic fitness levels than children without the disorder, although the reasons for this have not been tested in the literature. A potential explanation may lie in perceived adequacy regarding performance in physical activity. Although negative perceptions of adequacy in children with DCD likely reflect an accurate appraisal of actual physical abilities, aerobic fitness tests typically require minimal coordination skills. Children who perceive themselves to be less adequate are unlikely to persist at a task and may give up sooner on these tests of endurance. Using a large community based sample of children ages 9 through 14 (n=586), we examine whether differences in aerobic fitness (assessed by performance on a 20-m shuttle run test) between children who meet the criteria for DCD (n=44) and those who do not (n=542) is due to differences in perceived adequacy toward physical activity. Our results show that one-third of the effect of DCD on VO(2) can be attributed to differences in perceived adequacy. These results suggest that at least part of the reason children perform less well on tests of aerobic endurance is because they do not believe themselves to be as adequate as other children at physically active pursuits. The implications of this for further research are discussed.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".