Investigating the mediating role of internalizing and externalizing problems on physical fitness in children at risk for Developmental Coordination Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) have poorer fitness and greater internalizing/externalizing problems compared with typically developing (TD) children. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential mediating role of internalizing/externalizing problems on the relationship between children at risk for DCD (DCDr) and physical fitness. Participants (N = 589) included 288 children with DCDr (Mage= 4.9, 67% male) and 301 TD children (Mage= 5.0, 48% male). Motor skills were assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2ndedition (DCDr: at or below the 16th percentile, TD: >16th percentile). Parent-reported internalizing/externalizing problems were measured using the Child Behaviour Checklist. Physical fitness was measured using the Bruce protocol maximal treadmill test and a 30-second Wingate test. Tests for indirect (mediation) effects were assessed using the PROCESS v3.5 software macro. Children with DCDr had higher internalizing and externalizing problems (p < 0.001, d = 0.35–0.46) and poorer fitness levels (p < 0.001, ηp2= 0.05–0.09). Internalizing problems mediated fitness performance on both the treadmill and Wingate test; however, externalizing problems showed no mediating effects. Thus, interventions targeting internalizing problems may contribute to improving performance on fitness-based tasks among children with DCDr. Novelty: Children at risk for DCD have poorer fitness when compared with TD children. Children at risk for DCD experience greater internalizing/externalizing problems. Internalizing problems were found to mediate the DCD–physical fitness relationship.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".