A scoping review to explore how universal design for learning is described and implemented by rehabilitation health professionals in school settings.

BACKGROUND: Universal design for learning (UDL) is a framework that provides guidelines to support children with diverse needs in the classroom and promotes inclusion of all children. Although UDL is recognized as a promising approach for school-based rehabilitation health professionals (RHPs), there are no studies that synthesize evidence on the use of UDL by RHPs in the school setting. Therefore, the research question for this study is: How is UDL described and implemented in school settings by RHPs? This study specifically examined literature from occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech-language pathology. METHODS: A scoping review was completed to (a) summarize how UDL is described in the rehabilitation literature, (b) summarize the recommended and reported role of RHPs in the delivery of UDL, and (c) identify gaps in the evidence base. CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and ERIC electronic databases were searched. Numerical summaries and theoretical thematic analysis were used to describe the data both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were achieved for 45 of the 3,998 screened documents. Most of the included documents lacked a definition of UDL. Analysis suggested that speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists implement UDL in a variety of ways within the school setting. No physiotherapy literature was found, and limited high-level empirical research has been conducted within rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides a broad understanding of how RHPs describe and implement UDL-aligned services in school settings. UDL is a promising framework that provides RHPs with guidance on how to support children with diverse needs in the classroom, with the overall aim to promote inclusion of all children. There is a need for further research to determine the effectiveness of UDL as implemented by RHPs and to examine the role of physiotherapists in using UDL-type services.

Validity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire to detect risk of Developmental Coordination Disorder in preschoolers.

BACKGROUND: A reliable and valid screening tool for detecting children at risk for Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Third Edition (ASQ-3) motor scales to detect children at risk for DCD in a community-based sample of children aged 3.5-5.5 years. METHODS: One hundred and sixty parent-child pairs were recruited from community-based organizations. Children were eligible if they spoke English and had no known physical impairments. Eligible parents were asked to fill out the ASQ-3, following which their child's fine motor and gross motor proficiency was assessed using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (MABC-2). DCD risk was defined as those children scoring at or below the 16th percentile on the MABC-2. Sensitivity and specificity of the fine and gross motor areas of the ASQ-3 were examined and referenced against the DCD risk classification. RESULTS: The ASQ-3 total motor score correlated moderately with overall standard score on the MABC-2 (r = 0.41; p < 0.001). Regardless of the ASQ-3 cut-off used, sensitivities of the ASQ-3 fine motor or gross motor scale to detect DCD risk were low at 21-47%, whereas specificities were high at 89-96%. CONCLUSION: Early identification of motor skill delays is important in order to intervene and hopefully prevent the associated negative health consequences. However, because of the low sensitivity of the ASQ-3 motor scales, these results suggest that the ASQ-3 is not an appropriate screening tool to identify children at risk for DCD in the preschool population.

Development and evaluation of The KIT: Keeping It Together™â€ for†Youth (the 'Youth KIT') to assist youth with disabilities in managing information.

BACKGROUND: This article presents findings from the development and evaluation of The KIT: Keeping It Together™â€…for Youth (the 'Youth KIT'). The Youth KIT is a resource intended to assist youth with disabilities during their teenage years and during the transition to adulthood to give information to others about themselves, get from others about themselves, and organize their own information to the best of their ability. METHODS: Thirty-six youth between the ages of 12 and 25 with physical and developmental disabilities were active participants in the development of the Youth KIT and partnered with a multidisciplinary team to conduct the qualitative evaluation. Focus groups and individual interviews were used in three phases of evaluation. RESULTS: The results of qualitative content analysis found the Youth KIT to be useful for a variety of youth in different contexts. The themes that emerged about the utility and impact of the Youth KIT were: (1) self-discovery for youth; and (2) the importance of the 'fit' between youth and mentors to support youth as they started to use the Youth KIT. CONCLUSION: Clinical implications for healthcare providers working with youth during the transition to adulthood include recognition that discussions about adult goals should be a continuous dialogue throughout adolescence rather than a 'special' conversation occurring at the time of discharge from paediatric services.

Best practice principles for management of children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD): results of a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a prevalent health condition that is frequently unrecognized despite the substantial evidence that has accumulated regarding how it affects children's health, education and skills. Most literature focuses on measurement of impairment and description of intervention approaches for individual children; little is known about the principles that should guide best practice and service delivery for children with DCD as a population. The purpose of this study was to identify these principles. METHODS: A scoping review was used to 'map' the information available to inform intervention and service delivery. Scholarly and grey literature written in English was identified in six databases, using a combination of keywords (e.g. guidelines, management, models and DCD); a 'snow-balling' technique was also used in Canada and the UK to access clinical protocols used in publicly funded health care systems. Over 500 documents were screened: 31 met inclusion criteria as they outlined practice principles for children with DCD as a population. Data regarding best practices were independently extracted by two reviewers and then compared with achieve consistency and consensus. RESULTS: Two over-arching themes emerged, with five principles: (1) Organizing services to efficiently meet the comprehensive needs of children (e.g. Increasing awareness of DCD and coordination; Implementing clearly defined pathways; Using a graduated/staged approach); (2) Working collaboratively to offer evidence-based services (e.g. Integration of child and family views; Evidence-based interventions fostering function, participation and prevention). CONCLUSION: Numerous documents support each of the principles, reflecting agreement across studies about recommended organization of services. While these principles may apply to many populations of children with disabilities, this review highlights how essential these principles are in DCD. Researchers, managers, clinicians, community partners and families are encouraged to work together in designing, implementing and evaluating interventions that reflect these principles.

Descriptive and factor analysis of the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ'07) in a population-based sample of children with and without Developmental Coordination Disorder.

BACKGROUND: The Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ'07) discriminates children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) from their peers. Studies employing the DCDQ have typically used clinical samples. To further validate the DCDQ'07, this study: (1) described its distributions in a population-based sample, and a sample of children with DCD; (2) explored sex and age differences at important cut-points; and (3) examined its factor structure. METHODS: This secondary analysis of data collected from 23 schools (n = 3151) included a sample of 3070 children (1526 boys, 1544 girls) and a sample of 122 children (73 boys, 49 girls) who met DCD diagnostic criteria. DCDQ'07 distributions were described by age and sex. Chi-square analyses were conducted using three clinically important percentile ranges; a factor analysis explored the construct validity of DCDQ scores. RESULTS: Parents of 3070 children (97.4%) completed the questionnaire independently. Significant sex differences were noted in both samples. Significant differences in proportions by sex, and DCDQ means by age were found in the population sample. A three-factor solution was found, accounting for 70.3% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest studies using the DCDQ'07 with a non-clinical sample. The three-factor solution, including item loading, was consistent with previous research. When using DCDQ cut-offs it is important to consider sex and age.

Self-efficacy toward physical activity and the physical activity behavior of children with and without Developmental Coordination Disorder.

PURPOSE: Affecting 5-6% of children, Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is a prevalent chronic condition. The nature of the disorder - impaired motor coordination - makes avoidance of physical activity (PA) common. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of barrier and task self-efficacy on PA behavior in children with DCD and a group of typically developing (TD) children. METHODS: Children were compared on their perceived ability to complete different intensities and duration of PA (task efficacy) and their confidence in completing PA when faced with everyday barriers (barrier efficacy). An accelerometer was used to record their activity over the subsequent week. RESULTS: Children with DCD were found to have significantly lower task efficacy and barrier efficacy. They also spent significantly less time in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Multivariate analyses revealed that gender modified the relationship for both groups. Separate multivariate regressions, were therefore conducted by gender. A direct effect of DCD on PA was observed for boys, but not for girls. Further analyses showed that neither task efficacy nor barrier efficacy influenced the relationship between DCD and PA. CONCLUSION: Results from this study confirm that children with DCD have lower task and barrier self-efficacy than TD children and that males have lower PA levels than their TD peers; however neither task or barrier self-efficacy mediated the relationship between DCD and PA.

Activities and participation in children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review all literature published in peer reviewed journals from January 1995 to July 2008 in order to summarize and describe the activity limitations and participation restrictions of children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). METHODS: Multiple databases were systematically searched for articles related to DCD; only descriptive, intervention or qualitative articles were retained. Articles were coded using the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) and descriptions of the activity and participation issues of individuals with DCD were identified. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed that, from 371 articles that met inclusion criteria, only 44 (14.4%) presented any data related to activity or participation issues. Information was inconsistent and only 18 articles used published measurement tools. Most frequently cited issues were poor handwriting, difficulties playing ball games, getting dressed and participating in organized sports. CONCLUSION: Evidence concerning activity and participation issues for children with DCD is limited in both volume and scope. Improved understanding of participation and of activity limitations in children with DCD is essential for clarifying diagnostic criteria, guiding assessment, and making evidence-based decisions regarding intervention. Researchers working with this population should make every effort to measure and consistently report the impact of children's motor impairments on function.

Concurrent and construct validation of the short form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency and the Movement-ABC when administered under field conditions: implications for screening.

RATIONALE: Among the most widely used instruments to assess developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD) in children are the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC). However, there is little research on agreement between these tests, when administered to children in field-based settings by trained non-clinicians. METHOD: Ten of 75 schools participating in a larger study were randomly selected. All children in grade 4 (n= 340) in each of these schools were assessed at the same time using both the BOTMP-SF and the M-ABC in May of 2005. The order of tests was balanced, with an average gap in time between tests of 10-15 min. All tests were administered by trained research assistants. RESULTS: The correlation between tests was moderate (r= 0.50, P < 0.01). Kappas were low at the fifth (k= 0.19) and 15th (k= 0.29) percentile cut-points, which are generally used to identify cases of DCD. Re-analysis using the relative improvement over chance (RIOC) statistic, however, revealed slightly better agreement at both cut-points (fifth percentile, RIOC = 0.29; 15th percentile, RIOC = 0.47). Children who scored as probable for DCD on both motor tests, as well as on only the BOTMP-SF, had higher body mass index, poorer physical fitness and lower levels of teacher-reported physical ability than those positive for DCD on the M-ABC only or those who scored negatively on both tests. DISCUSSION: In general, the agreement between tests, even after adjustment for RIOC, was poor. Children identified with poor motor competence by both tests or by the BOTMP-SF only are at particular risk for poor physical fitness, overweight/obesity and physical inactivity. It appears that each assessment measures different dimensions of motor ability but that under field-based conditions the M-ABC may be less useful when applied by non-clinicians.

Comparing probable case identification of developmental coordination disorder using the short form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency and the Movement ABC.

Aim Despite its widespread current use in research and its potential for future application, the validity of the short form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP-SF) when administered by trained lay assessors is not known. This paper reports the results of case identification using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC) in a group of children scoring below the sixth percentile on the BOTMP-SF. Methods The BOTMP-SF was administered by trained research assistants to 2058 children. In total, 24 of 128 children aged 10 (n = 10), 11 (n = 10) or 12 (n = 4) scoring below the sixth percentile were randomly selected for further assessment by a paediatric occupational therapist using the M-ABC and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Results Twenty-one of 24 children positive for motor co-ordination problems on the BOTMP-SF scored below the 15th percentile of the M-ABC, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69 to 0.96]. Fifteen of these children were below the fifth percentile (PPV = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.43 to 0.79). Conclusions The BOTMP-SF seems to be a reasonable alternative to case identification when clinical assessment with the M-ABC is not feasible. Further research is needed to examine the sensitivity and specificity of the short form when used for this purpose.

Proposed motor development assessment protocol for epidemiological studies in children.

This paper proposes an approach to the implementation of a large-scale epidemiological study of child development. It addresses specifically how one might assess gross motor development longitudinally in a large population-based study of children, and recommends a three-phase process. Phase I, applied at key ages with the entire population, involves the use of parent-report screening tools that ask about specific age-appropriate motor skills, as well as any parental concerns about "quantity" or "quality" of their child's motor function and about any loss of motor function. In phase II, children who "fail" the screening phase (at any stage) are evaluated with specified developmental motor assessments. Those who "pass" revert to the screening stream, while those who "fail" continue to phase III. In this third component of the study, children are referred to experts in child development formally engaged in the study (including developmental paediatricians, paediatric neurologists and developmental therapists). These experts will use protocol-based evaluations to ascertain whether a child has a problem in development, what the problem might be from a diagnostic perspective, how "severe" the problem is, and what management services are or should be provided. It is argued that this is an efficient approach to the study of a population that would enable investigators to detect specific relatively common developmental motor disorders (in particular, cerebral palsy and developmental coordination disorder).

Early identification: are speech/language-impaired toddlers at increased risk for Developmental Coordination Disorder?

BACKGROUND: Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) is a movement skill disorder which impacts upon a child's ability to perform age-appropriate self-care and academic tasks. DCD is commonly comorbid with speech/language learning disabilities. AIM: The present study was conducted to determine whether children who had been identified with speech/language delays as toddlers demonstrated characteristics of DCD and/or speech/language problems at kindergarten age. RESULTS: Speech/language and motor assessments who were followed up at 63-80 months of age. Of the 40 children, 18 showed evidence of significant motor impairment and two-thirds of these met diagnostic criteria for DCD at follow-up. Twelve children were identified as having persistent speech/language problems and, of these, nine presented with significant motor co-ordination difficulties. Parental report of gross motor and fine motor problems at follow-up correlated highly with actual motor impairment scores. CONCLUSIONS: Young children who are in early intervention programmes for speech/language delays may have significant co-ordination difficulties that will become more evident at kindergarten age when motor deficits begin to impact self-care and academic tasks. Clinical implications for early recognition of motor issues by speech/language pathologists and the potential use of parental reporting tools are addressed.

Keeping It Together: an information KIT for parents of children and youth with special needs.

BACKGROUND: Provision and use of information about their children is a major concern to families who have a child with a disability. Strategies or systems to influence parents' abilities to receive, give and use information in a way that is satisfying to them have not been well validated. METHODS: This paper reports on the development and evaluation of a Parent Information KIT ('Keeping It Together') information management system and child advocacy tool. The KIT was designed to assist parents in giving, getting and organizing information in an effective way. The KIT was evaluated by a sample of 440 parents, with outcomes of use, utility, impact and perceptions of family-centred care measured at baseline, and after 6 months, and 15 months. RESULTS: Parents' perceptions of their ability, confidence and satisfaction when using information improved significantly after using the KIT. Parents' perceptions of care, as measured with the Measure of Processes of Care, also improved significantly in the areas of 'Enabling/Partnership' and 'Providing General Information'. Parents' ratings of the use and utility of the KIT were associated with increased impact and, in turn, predicted improved perceptions of care. CONCLUSION: Parents who received and actively used the Parent Information KIT experienced significant increases in their perception of their ability and self-confidence in getting, giving and using information to assist their child with a disability. Strategies for improving the use of the KIT among parents are discussed.

A pilot trial of a cognitive treatment for children with developmental coordination disorder.

This pilot study compared a new treatment approach, the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) to the Contemporary Treatment Approach (CTA) to treating children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). CO-OP emphasises problem-solving strategies and guided discovery of child and task specific strategies. CTA encompasses a variety of approaches, such as neuromuscular, multi-sensory, and biomechanical, focusing on motor aspects of skill acquisition. Twenty children with a mean age of 9.05 years (S.D. = 1.23) participated in the study. All children had normal intelligence, scored below the 15th percentile on a standardised test of motor ability, and demonstrated motor difficulties significant enough to warrant referral for treatment. Pre- and post-measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS), the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP), the Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration-Revised (VMI), the motor items of the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC), and the Performance Quality Rating Scale (PQRS). In both groups, treatment goals were child-chosen. Both treatments lead to improved COPM self-ratings of performance and satisfaction; however, improvements in the CO-OP group were greater than those in the CTA group. These results were paralleled by PQRS scores, and the Motor scores on the VABS, but not on the BOTMP measures. This outcome still needs replication as no control group was involved and because of the occurrence of pre-treatment differences between the CO-OP and CTA groups on relevant measures. Follow-up data indicated that children who received CO-OP tended to experience greater long-term maintenance of their motor goals and acquired strategies; follow-up parent-report rated CO-OP treatment as more useful than CTA treatment. Self-report, observer report, standardised assessment, and follow-up all demonstrated the effectiveness of the CO-OP approach, supporting the use of CO-OP and suggesting further investigation of this new cognitive intervention.

Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (CO-OP): part III--the protocol in brief.

Parts I and II of this series introduced the Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP), a new approach to intervention that is based on the premise that cognition plays an important role in the acquisition of occupational skills and the development of occupational competency. Developed for use with children who have occupational performance deficits, CO-OP is an individualized, client-centred approach focused on strategy-based skill acquisition. This third paper in this series presents a brief description of the actual CO-OP protocol including its objectives, prerequisites and key features.

Cognitive strategies and motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder.

Recently, researchers in occupational therapy have investigated the use of a cognitive or "top down" approach to improving the occupational performance of children with developmental coordination disorder. A cognitive approach is multifaceted in nature and one essential component of such an approach is the use of cognitive strategies. Although strategy use has a long history within the education and psychology literature, little discussion within the pediatric therapy literature has occurred. This paper reports the results of an in-depth videotape analysis of therapists using cognitive strategies during occupational therapy intervention. Eight domain specific strategies were identified and elucidated. This research will be beneficial to therapists who wish to incorporate a cognitive approach into their clinical practice.

Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (CO-OP): part I--theoretical foundations.

This paper is the first in a series of three papers that present the systematic development and evaluation of Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP). CO-OP is a cognitively based, child-centred intervention that enables children to achieve their functional goals. In Part I, the breadth of literature that provides the theoretical underpinnings for the approach is reviewed. Parts II and III provide a description of the approach and present the evidence to support its use with children with developmental coordination disorder.

Clinical description of children with developmental coordination disorder.

Occupational therapists working within School Health Support Services are receiving increasing numbers of referrals, relative to past rates, for children who are experiencing motor problems and may have developmental coordination disorder. Based upon clinical experience, therapists indicate that these children are typically referred in the early school years and that most have handwriting difficulties; to date, however, there has been little empirical evidence to support these observations. In this paper, descriptive information is presented for 556 children who may be presumed to have developmental coordination disorder and who had been referred to school-based health services in two centres. Typical reasons for referral, co-morbidity information, and assessment practices are presented. Findings confirmed the presence of many occupational performance issues in this population, including handwriting difficulties, and challenge therapists to broaden the current scope of school health assessment and intervention practices.

Perceived efficacy and goal setting in young children.

One of the central tenets of client-centred occupational therapy is to enable clients to select goals to work on in therapy (Law, 1998). The process of identifying and prioritizing goals is fairly abstract, therefore occupational therapy goals for children are often prescribed by the therapist or by parents and teachers. The purpose of this study was to pilot test a measure and a process that would provide young children with the opportunity to assess their performance on daily tasks and to establish goals for occupational therapy intervention. Parents and children completed the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS), a measure of children's perception of their competence performing fine and gross motor tasks. Children 5-9 years of age were able to discriminate among tasks and to rate whether or not they were able to perform each task competently. They were also able to use this information to select and prioritize goals for intervention. While parents often rated the child's competence lower than the child did, there was a high level of agreement regarding which tasks were difficult for the child. Parents and children often did not agree about the specific selection or priority of these tasks for intervention, however, which highlights the need for further research.

Developmental dyspraxia by any other name: are they all just clumsy children?

The recent introduction of the diagnostic category developmental coordination disorder (DCD) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1987, 1994), has generated confusion among researchers and clinicians in many fields, including occupational therapy. Although the diagnostic criteria appear to be similar to those used to define clumsy children, children with developmental dyspraxia, or children with sensory integrative dysfunction, we are left with the question: Are children who receive the diagnosis of DCD the same as those who receive the other diagnoses, a subgroup, or an entirely distinct group of children? This article will examine the theoretical and empirical literature and use the results to support the thesis that these terms are not interchangeable and yet are not being used in the literature in a way that clearly defines each subgroup of children. Clear definitions and characteristic features need to be identified and associated with each term to guide occupational therapy assessment and intervention and clinical research.