Effectiveness of interventions to improve participation outcomes for children with developmental coordination disorder: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Developmental coordination disorder affects a child’s motor abilities and participation across environments. This study aimed to review systematically the effectiveness of interventions using a motor, cognitive or psychological approach on participation outcomes in children with developmental coordination disorder. Method A systematic review of the literature published between 2001 and November 2017 was conducted. Eight electronic databases were searched: Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, Education Full Text (H. W. Wilson databases), SPORTDiscus (all via EBSCO) and Scopus (Web of Science). Results In total, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria: seven randomised controlled trials, two quasi-experimental and three case series. Systematic quality assessment and meta-analysis was not possible given the heterogeneity of research designs, interventions and outcome measures. Limited evidence for participation outcomes was found. The cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance intervention found a between-group effect on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) outcome measure performance, g = 1.0 (0.02, 1.9), and COPM satisfaction, g = 1.4 (0.4, 2.3), in favour of the cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance for one randomised controlled trial. Large significant within-group effects were found for the cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance intervention on the COPM outcome measure COPM satisfaction, d = –2.1 (–5.2, –0.2). Conclusion More high-quality research is needed to strengthen the evidence base regarding occupational therapy interventions to improve participation outcomes for children with developmental coordination disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".