The effect of symptoms of inattention/hyperactivity on physical activity across different levels of motor coordination in young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects approximately 5-6% of children (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). DCD is characterized by deficits in fine and gross motor skills resulting in decreased motor performance. Studies have shown that DCD is associated with other developmental disorders, the most common being attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). While children with DCD have been shown to be less physically active than their typically developing peers (Rivilis et al., 2011), the literature pertaining to how ADHD affects the relationship between physical activity (PA) and motor coordination is limited. Participants (N = 494, 218 girls, Mage = 4.47±0.50 years) in the current study are part of a larger cohort study with 261 (155 boys) children classified as at risk for DCD. Overall, inattention/hyperactivity was shown to be positively associated with MVPA (min/day) among all children (r = .12, p = .009). However, the strongest associations were found in children with DCD scoring in the 6-16th percentile range (r = .20, p =.015), and were non-significant for children below the 6th percentile (r = .16, p =.14). One possible explanation might be that the children with the most severe motor impairments that are inattentive/hyperactive may lack the confidence in their ability to engage in PA and, in turn, choose non-active pursuits to cope with their hyperactivity. These findings warrant further investigation into these constructs, and other potential psychological factors (e.g., self-perception) that may be impacting the relationship between PA and ADHD across the motor spectrum.Acknowledgments: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) award (#126015)
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".