MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407254843 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2447370

Participation and quality of life among Australian children with developmental coordination disorder

2025· article· en· W4407254843 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew C. McQueen, Jill G. Zwicker, Scott Ruddock, Jacqueline Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Developmental psychologyQuality (philosophy)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) experience difficulty in the acquisition and performance of movement skills, threatening participation and quality of life. Environmental influences on participation and quality of life were investigated in children with DCD and their neurotypical peers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . The association between participation, environmental factors, and quality of life were investigated alongside group differences in home, school, and community settings. RESULTS: Children with DCD were less involved than their neurotypical peers in school and community activities. Across all settings, parents of children with DCD reported more barriers to participation, less helpful environments, a greater desire for change in participation, and lower overall environmental support. Children with DCD experienced poorer quality of life, which was predicted by overall community and school support. CONCLUSIONS: Results have several implications for therapy. Individual (e.g., cognitive and physical demands) and environmental factors (e.g., additional school and community resources) should be considered in intervention development to promote participation frequency and involvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207