Effectiveness of a Summer Camp Intervention for Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) significantly affects a child's motor abilities and negatively impacts their self-efficacy and participation in physical activity. Using a task-specific approach and cognitive strategies in a group setting, we designed a summer camp intervention for children with DCD. AIMS: Our purpose was to examine the effectiveness of the summer camp in meeting child-chosen functional motor goals and increasing self-efficacy and participation. METHODS: This mixed methods study examined performance and satisfaction of child-chosen goals, self-efficacy, and participation of 11 children before and after the camp. Survey and interview data from three children and nine parents were collected to supplement quantitative findings. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvement in performance and satisfaction of child-chosen goals was noted. While no measureable changes in self-efficacy and participation were observed, parents and children reported positive benefits to camp participation, including the confidence to try new activities, being with other children with DCD, and learning more about the disorder. CONCLUSION: The intensive, group-based summer camp may offer a valuable alternative to improve the functional skills of children with DCD, while providing other notable benefits.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".