Mysteries and Mazes: Parents' Experiences of Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) represent 5 to 6% of the school-aged population and are often seen by occupational therapists in the school system. Although a family-centred approach has been identified as best practice in pediatric care, the perspective of parents is often overlooked both in research and in practice. PURPOSE AND METHOD: In this study, a qualitative, phenomenological approach was adopted to explore the insights and experiences of 13 parents of children with DCD. Each parent participated in two in-depth interviews and completed a set of questionnaires. RESULTS: Analysis of the study findings led to three primary themes that captured the experience of parents as they attempted to understand and get help for their child. The theme of unravelling the mystery highlights parents' impressions of their child's difficulties. The second theme of negotiating the maze refers to the many pathways followed by families as they sought to affirm their perceptions and obtain services for their child and the final theme of parenting dilemmas underscores some of the common challenges faced by parents in trying to deal with their child's limitations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: For occupational therapists, the study findings illustrate the importance of focusing on occupational performance issues for children with DCD, facilitating the understanding of parents, and the need for early intervention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".