Occupational therapists’ awareness of guidelines for assessment and diagnosis of developmental coordination disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a motor skills disorder that can have negative lifelong psychosocial impacts if not diagnosed. Occupational therapists have a role in facilitating a diagnosis for children with DCD through assessment. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the level of understanding of current DCD guidelines for assessment and diagnosis among occupational therapists working in paediatric settings in British Columbia, Canada. METHOD: An online survey was e-mailed to occupational therapists who consented to be contacted for research purposes; 169 paediatric therapists responded. Data were reported using percentage, mean, and standard deviation of responses for each answer. FINDINGS: Although many occupational therapists are aware of DCD and the diagnostic criteria, most are unaware of current guidelines for assessment and diagnosis. Many are using cutoff scores inconsistent with current recommendations and thus may not be facilitating a diagnosis when one may be appropriate. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapists may benefit from targeted education regarding DCD assessment and diagnosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".