Psychometric Properties of the Revised Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) is a parent-completed measure designed to identify subtle motor problems in children of 8 to 14.6 years of age. The purpose of this study was to extend the lower age range to children aged 5 to 7 years, revise items to ensure clarity, develop new scoring, and evaluate validity of the revised questionnaire. Additional items with improved wording were generated by an expert panel. Analyses of internal consistency, factor loading, and qualitative/quantitative feedback from researchers, clinicians, and parents were used to select 15 items with the strongest psychometric properties. Internal consistency was high (alpha = .94). The expanded questionnaire was completed by the parents of 287 children, aged 5-15 years, who were typically developing. Logistic regression modeling was used to generate separate cutoff scores for three age groups (overall sensitivity = 85%, specificity = 71%). The revised DCDQ was then compared to other standardized measures in a sample of 232 children referred for therapy services. Differences in scores between children with and without DCD (p < .001) provide evidence of construct validity. Correlations between DCDQ scores and Movement Assessment Battery for Children (r = .55) and Test of Visual-Motor Integration (r = .42) scores support concurrent validity. The results provide evidence that the revised DCDQ is a valid clinical screening tool for 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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".