Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of interventions to improve motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder: a combined systematic review and meta‐analysis

Open access
SMITS‐ENGELSMAN, BOUWIEN C M, BLANK, RAINER, VAN DER KAAY, ANNE‐CLAIRE, MOSTERD‐VAN DER MEIJS, RIANNE, VLUGT‐VAN DEN BRAND, ELLEN, POLATAJKO, HELENE J, WILSON, PETER H·2013·Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology

Abstract

Aim The aim of this study was to review systematically evidence about the efficacy of motor interventions for children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), and to quantify treatment effects using meta‐analysis. Method Included were all studies published between 1995 and 2011 that described a systematic review, (randomized) clinical trial, or crossover design about the effect of motor intervention in children with DCD. Studies were compared on four components: design, methodological quality, intervention components, and efficacy. Twenty‐six studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Interventions were coded under four types: (1) task‐oriented intervention, (2) traditional physical therapy and occupational therapy, (3) process‐oriented therapies, and (4) chemical supplements. For the meta‐analysis, effect sizes were available for 20 studies and their magnitude (weighted Cohen’s d[dw]) was compared across training types. Results The overall effect size across all intervention studies was dw=0.56. A comparison between classes of intervention showed strong effects for task‐oriented intervention (dw=0.89) and physical and occupational therapies (dw=0.83), whereas that for process‐oriented intervention was weak (dw=0.12). Of the chemical supplements, treatment with methylphenidate was researched in three studies (dw=0.79) and supplementation of fatty acids plus vitamin E in one study (no effect). The post hoc comparison between treatment types showed that the effect size of the task‐oriented approach was significantly higher than the process‐oriented intervention (p=0.01) and comparison (p=0.006). No significant difference in the magnitude of effect size between traditional physical and occupational therapy approaches and any of the other interventions emerged. Interpretation In general, intervention is shown to produce benefit for the motor performance of children with DCD, over and above no intervention. However, approaches from a task‐oriented perspective yield stronger effects. Process‐oriented approaches are not recommended for improving motor performance in DCD, whereas the evidence for chemical supplements for children with DCD is currently insufficient for a recommendation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dmcn.12008

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
SMITS‐ENGELSMAN, B. C. M., BLANK, R., VAN DER KAAY, A., MOSTERD‐VAN DER MEIJS, R., VLUGT‐VAN DEN BRAND, E., POLATAJKO, H. J., & WILSON, P. H.
Venue
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-29
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
229-237
ISSN
  • 0012-1622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8749
OpenAlex
W1983864290
Cited by
342
References
54
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of interventions to improve motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder: a combined systematic review and meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/dmcn.12008
The paper
SMITS‐ENGELSMAN, B. C. M., BLANK, R., VAN DER KAAY, A., MOSTERD‐VAN DER MEIJS, R., VLUGT‐VAN DEN BRAND, E., POLATAJKO, H. J., & WILSON, P. H. (2013). Efficacy of interventions to improve motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder: a combined systematic review and meta‐analysis. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.