The physical activity experiences of children with attention -deficit/hyperactivity disorder and movement difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often experience challenges in physical activity (PA) behaviours due to their poor movement performances (Harvey et al., 2007) that may also overlap with movement behaviour disorders, like Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD; Sergeant, Piek, & Oosterlaan, 2006). The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the PA experiences of boys with ADHD who had a range of movement difficulties. It explored the good and not so good PA days of six boys with ADHD to gain a broader understanding of PA experiences from each child's perspective. The convenience sample of six boys with ADHD, 7-12 years, was recruited from an ADHD clinic at a provincial mental health university institute in Quebec, Canada. A sequential mixed-method research design was employed to understand the boys' PA experiences. First, two quantitative movement skill assessment tests, Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) and Test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2), were administered. The boys were categorized into two groups, based on the results from the MABC-2 test scores. Three boys were placed into the Amber/Red (A/R)-Zone group (i.e., "at risk" of having DCD or movement difficulties) and three boys were placed into the Green (G)-Zone group (i.e., no movement difficulties). The TGMD-2 scores showed that both groups demonstrated poor fundamental movement skills. This finding was expected for the A/R-Zone group but not for the G-Zone group. A new qualitative, visual research method, called the storybook-telling interview technique, was also created for this pilot study. The method enabled child-friendly, semi-structured PA interviews to be conducted with each participant. Within- and between-case analyses were performed during thematic analyses. Five themes emerged from the interview: Activity, Knowledge, Self-Awareness, Other People and Interview. Both groups shared similar experiences because they related positive feelings about performing specific movement skills and playing with family and friends during PA. A few differences were also present. The boys in the A/R-Zone group experienced asocial behaviours from their peers (e.g., exclusion) whereas the boys in the G-Zone group spoke about building rapport with peers during PA. This is the first qualitative study to concurrently explore the PA experiences of children with ADHD/DCD (e.g. A/R-Zone group) and ADHD (e.g., G-Zone group). It is hoped that this pilot study will lead to more research studies in this area to encourage all children with ADHD to lead a healthy and active lifestyle in the long term.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".