Improving Motor Proficiency in Children with Developmental Delays: A Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Impact of Motor Skills Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of motor skill interventions in improving motor proficiency among children with developmental delays following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis “PRISMA” recommendations. The included studies were searched on four databases: Google Scholar, PEDro, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library. Studies published during the year 2012 to 2022 were selected. The data was extracted by defining the publication year, type of study design, targeted population, and type of physical therapy intervention. The outcome measures included four components of motor proficiency: bilateral coordination, balance, speed and agility, and strength. The results revealed statistically significant findings and a large effect size for bilateral coordination (SMD=1.003, CI=95%) and speed and agility (SMD=0.854, CI=95%). However, a smaller effect size with significant findings was observed in the balance domains (SMD=0.333, CI=95%) and strength (SMD=0.337, CI=95%). Despite the promising results of the analyzed interventions, some of the included studies observed a high risk of bias. However, it is evident from the analysis that protocols directed toward advanced approaches have shown more promising results than traditional physical exercise regimens.
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 | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".