The Academic, Psychological, and Physical Impact of Motor Skills Difficulties on College Students: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose of Review This scoping review examines the extent and quality of research literature to determine the impact of motor skills difficulties on college or university students. It assesses the adequacy of current institutional supports and identifies opportunities for more inclusive educational practices. Recent Findings Four databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were searched for English-language studies published since 1970. Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria: 12 empirical, 4 descriptive, and 2 program evaluations. Six papers from the UK addressed support, social isolation, and academic confidence; six Israeli studies focused on handwriting, dysgraphia, and accommodations; three US studies examined physical activity; and single studies from Canada, Sweden, and Italy explored social impact, assessment practices, and self-efficacy. Study selection followed PRISMA-ScR and Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework. Findings were qualitatively synthesized. Summary Students with motor difficulties face challenges in executive functioning, communication, confidence, and daily living. While support is inconsistent, physical activity and person-centred approaches show promise. Early identification and inclusive practices are essential, with future research needed to centre the student voice and adopt longitudinal, strengths-based approaches.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it