Comorbid Developmental Coordination Disorder and ADHD: The Effects on Emotional and Behavioural Problems in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both DCD and ADHD are recognised neurodevelopmental conditions, however, their co-occurrence and subsequent effects remain insufficiently explored. This paper aims to address this gap by examining the relationship between motor proficiency and ADHD symptoms in young children, and elucidating the combined impact on internalising and externalising symptoms. Data from the Coordination and Activity Tracking in CHildren (CATCH) study (n = 532) were analysed. Children aged 6-9years were classified into typically motor developing (TMD; Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2nd Edition [MABC-2] > 16th percentile), at risk for DCD (DCDr; MABC-2 6th ≤ 16th percentile), or with probable DCD (pDCD; MABC-2 < 6th percentile). ADHD symptoms were assessed using the Conners Parent Rating Scale, 3rd Edition, and mental health symptoms assessed with the Child Behaviour Checklist for school-aged children (CBCL). 28% of children with pDCD and 19% of children with DCDr had clinically significant ADHD symptoms. Those with comorbid pDCD and clinically significant ADHD symptoms exhibited significantly elevated CBCL scores compared to those without clinically significant ADHD symptoms. The increased experience of mental health challenges in children with comorbid pDCD and clinically significant ADHD symptoms underscores the importance of universal screening for ADHD and mental health concerns in children with DCD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".