Developmental Coordination Disorder: Emotional and Cognitive Implications on Adults’ Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) may persist into adulthood, reduce function, participation, and quality of life (QOL). The negative impacts of DCD are mainly studied in children. Purpose. To explore the interrelations between factors affected by DCD in adults, with a focus on emotional/cognitive burdens, self-efficacy, and examine their direct/indirect effects on QOL. Methods. Based on Adult Developmental Co-ordination Checklist (ADC) cutoff scores, 240 adults were divided into three groups: (1) suspected DCD (s-DCD), (2) probable DCD (p-DCD), and (3) normal motor coordination. Participants completed the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21, General Self-Efficacy scale, Daily Living Questionnaire (functional cognition), and The World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire brief form. Structural equation modeling examined mediation effects. Findings. The p-DCD group had the lowest emotional status, functional cognition, self-efficacy, and QOL and significantly differed from the s-DCD group in functional cognition. Emotional distress and self-efficacy mediated between motor coordination and QOL. Conclusion. The emotional-cognitive burdens in adults with DCD are related to motor deficits severity, reduced self-efficacy, and lower QOL. DCD should be screened and treated in adults to reduce daily life restrictions and elevate QOL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".