Physical Fitness in Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To synthesize evidence about physical fitness levels in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) compared with typically developing (TD) children.Methods We searched four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) for cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies comparing physical fitness between children with and without DCD. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We calculated Cohen’s d effect sizes to provide clinical evidence of group differences in aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, muscle strength, body composition and flexibility.Results We included 32 studies for qualitative synthesis after applying eligibility criteria. All selected studies ranged from moderate to high research quality. Effect sizes in favor of typically developing children over children with DCD were large for aerobic capacity (d = 1.15), anaerobic capacity (d = 0.90), and muscle strength (d = 0.79), and small for body composition (d = 0.43) and flexibility (d = 0.21) outcomes.Conclusion Children with DCD presented significantly lower physical fitness than their typically developing peers, particularly in aerobic and anaerobic capacity and in muscle strength.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".