Descriptive and factor analysis of the <scp>D</scp>evelopmental <scp>C</scp>oordination <scp>D</scp>isorder <scp>Q</scp>uestionnaire (<scp>DCDQ</scp>‘07) in a population‐based sample of children with and without <scp>D</scp>evelopmental <scp>C</scp>oordination <scp>D</scp>isorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ'07) discriminates children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) from their peers. Studies employing the DCDQ have typically used clinical samples. To further validate the DCDQ'07, this study: (1) described its distributions in a population-based sample, and a sample of children with DCD; (2) explored sex and age differences at important cut-points; and (3) examined its factor structure. METHODS: This secondary analysis of data collected from 23 schools (n = 3151) included a sample of 3070 children (1526 boys, 1544 girls) and a sample of 122 children (73 boys, 49 girls) who met DCD diagnostic criteria. DCDQ'07 distributions were described by age and sex. Chi-square analyses were conducted using three clinically important percentile ranges; a factor analysis explored the construct validity of DCDQ scores. RESULTS: Parents of 3070 children (97.4%) completed the questionnaire independently. Significant sex differences were noted in both samples. Significant differences in proportions by sex, and DCDQ means by age were found in the population sample. A three-factor solution was found, accounting for 70.3% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest studies using the DCDQ'07 with a non-clinical sample. The three-factor solution, including item loading, was consistent with previous research. When using DCDQ cut-offs it is important to consider sex and age.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".