Children's Perceptions of the Impact of Developmental Coordination Disorder on Activities of Daily Living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) have a motor impairment that affects their ability to perform everyday tasks. Although severity of motor impairment can be measured, methods for assessing the perceived impact of DCD on daily activities have not been established. The purpose of this study was to use a child-focused approach to understand children's views of the impact of DCD on the activities that they perform daily. Children aged 5–10 years, referred with coordination difficulties to occupational therapists, were assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children: children who received scores below the 15th percentile were included. The Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS), a pictorial scale validated as a method for engaging children with disabilities, was administered to examine the children's perceptions of their competence in performing everyday activities and to identify goals for therapy. Parent and teacher concerns were collected by a questionnaire. The children, parents and teachers shared many concerns about the impact of DCD on physical tasks and on academic activities such as handwriting. The children expressed additional concerns, however, about their ability to perform daily self-care tasks and leisure activities, which were rarely recognised by the adults. Children require specialised methods to enable them to express their views and the PEGS appears to be suitable for this purpose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".