Motor, physical, and behavioural performance of 3‐ to 5‐year‐old children at risk of developmental coordination disorder: A longitudinal observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the motor, physical, and behavioural performance of children at risk of developmental coordination disorder (rDCD) and typically developing children at 3, 4, and 5 years of age. METHOD: Following a longitudinal design, 35 mainly high-risk children identified as rDCD by a multidisciplinary team at a centre for developmental disabilities and 34 typically developing children participated. Children were assessed with the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition, Dutch/Belgian version (MABC-2-NL), Beery-Buktenica Test of Visual-Motor Integration (Beery VMI-6), Little Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire - Belgian version (LDCDQ-BE), Motor Skill Checklist, Functional Strength Measurement, body mass index, and Child Behavior Checklist. Linear mixed-model analyses compared performance between groups (rDCD and typically developing) and subgroups (confirmed and cleared DCD at 5 years). RESULTS: Children with rDCD scored significantly worse on all outcomes at every time point compared with typically developing children, except for visual perception. Performance on the MABC-2-NL, Beery VMI-6 subtest motor coordination, and LDCDQ-BE was also consistently below average for those in the rDCD group. Performance across time points was stable in the rDCD group, with only a significant improvement in LDCDQ-BE. Children not diagnosed with DCD (n = 5) were mostly similar in performance to the typically developing group. INTERPRETATION: Performance differences are present at 3 years in high-risk children at rDCD and tend to persist between 3 and 5 years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".