Effects of group-based versus individual-based exercise training on motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder: A randomized controlled study

Hung, Wei‐Wen; Pang, Marco Yiu Chung

doi:10.2340/16501977-0496

Cited by 59 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the purpose of the study is to find the effectiveness of a program, it is always best to have an experimental group (testing the program) and a control group to compare. This was not the case for the Hung & Pang (2010) and the Peters & Wright (1999) studies. Fong et al (2013) used an intention-to-treat principle but stated that it may have contributed to the "no change" observations in their 2 control groups.…”

Section: Intervention Designmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The case study by Hodges (2014) found that after eight months of their physical therapy program, the child improved in balance, coordination, gross motor development, cardiovascular endurance, and self-esteem. In two studies, there were two intervention groups (Hung & Pang, 2010;Iversen et al, 2005). In one study, one group received group-based training and the other group received individual-based training (Hung & Pang, 2010).…”

Section: Traditional Physical Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In one study, one group received group-based training and the other group received individual-based training (Hung & Pang, 2010). Although the difference in MABC total impairment score was not significant between the two intervention groups (p = .38), Hung and Pang (2010) found a significant reduction in scores of the individual-based training intervention group (mean-5.2 (SD 5.1), p = .01) and the group-based training intervention group (mean-4.4 (SD 5.0), p < .01).…”

Section: Traditional Physical Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the purpose of the study is to find the effectiveness of a program, it is always best to have an experimental group (testing the program) and a control group to compare. This was not the case for the Hung & Pang (2010) group conducted all assessments, but the subjects and the treating therapists were not blinded, which, according to authors, introduced a source of potential bias. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ten of the 29 studies included in the SLR (including three randomized controlled trials) explored the effectiveness of motor skills training using 248 children ages 6-17 years (Chia & Chua, 2002;Iversen, Ellertsen, Tytlandsvik, & Nødland, 2005;Hodges, 2014;Hung & Pang, 2010;Lee & Smith, 1998;Maldonado et al, 2012;Morton, 2015;Peters & Wright, 1999;Schoemaker, Hijlkema, & Kalverboer, 1994;Watter & Bullock, 1989). In studies where frequency was reported, physical therapy was provided weekly (Hung & Pang, 2010;Lee & Smith, 1998;Morton, 2015;Peters & Wright, 1999), biweekly, or three times a week (Watter & Bullock, 1989) for 8-12 weeks. In one study, participants also had a daily home program (Lee & Smith, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of Interventions for Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder in Physical Therapy Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Offor

Williamson

Caçola

2016

Journal of Motor Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to identify the types of interventions in physical therapy contexts that have been explored in children with developmental coordination disorder, the most common variables being addressed, and whether these interventions are effective. Method: This systematic search of MEDLINE, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library identified interventions in physical therapy contexts for children and adolescents with DCD, and studies were screened using these criteria and assessed using the PEDro and NIH quality assessment scales. AMSTAR was used to evaluate systematic reviews and a meta-analysis was conducted. Results: From the articles reviewed, 29 articles of moderate to good quality were included in the qualitative analysis. Task-oriented approaches as well as motor skill training-based interventions have shown beneficial effects in improving motor function in children with DCD. Data from 14 articles was extracted for inclusion in the meta-analysis, providing support for the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions against inaction. Conclusion: Researchers recommend the use of task-oriented and traditional physical therapy interventions for children with DCD. In addition, interventions in physical therapy contexts need clear goals and outcome measures for individual children.Keywords: developmental coordination disorder, child, adolescent, physical therapy, interventions, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, motor skill disorders Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a condition in which difficulties in motor skills exist but are not due to the overall intellect, primary sensor, or motor neurology of the individual. A primary characteristic of DCD is the difficulty in learning and performing everyday tasks in all aspects of life (home, school, play, etc.). The estimated prevalence of DCD ranges between 2% and 7% of all school-aged children (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) with some reports suggesting that boys have a higher incidence than girls (Hillier, 2007). Children with DCD generally perform more poorly than other children on a variety of measures reflective of motor control and motor learning as well as sensory and perceptual processing. DCD can occur with other conditions such as specific language impairment (SLI) or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Cermark, Gubbay, & Larkin, 2009).According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; APA, 2013), the criteria for a DCD diagnosis involve the following characteristics:(a) Acquisition and execution of coordinated motor skills are below what would be expected at a given chronologic age and opportunity for skill learning and use; difficulties are manifested as clumsiness (e.g. dropping or bumping into objects) and as slowness and inaccuracy of performance of motor skills (e.g. catching an object, using scissors, handwriting, riding a bike, or participating in sports), (b) The motor skills deficit si...

show abstract

Section: Intervention Designmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Traditional Physical Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Traditional Physical Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the purpose of the study is to find the effectiveness of a program, it is always best to have an experimental group (testing the program) and a control group to compare. This was not the case for the Hung & Pang (2010) group conducted all assessments, but the subjects and the treating therapists were not blinded, which, according to authors, introduced a source of potential bias. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of Interventions for Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder in Physical Therapy Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Offor

Williamson

Caçola

2016

Journal of Motor Learning and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Task-oriented interventions for children with developmental co-ordination disorder

Miyahara

Hillier

Pridham

et al. 2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. The conclusions drawn from previous reviews, which unanimously reported beneficial effects of intervention, are inconsistent with our conclusions. This review highlights the need for carefully designed and executed RCTs to investigate the effect of interventions for children with DCD.

show abstract

Evidence and gap map of studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low‐and middle‐income countries

Saran

White

Kuper

2020

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are approximately 1 billion people in the world with some form of disability. This corresponds to approximately 15% of the world's population (World Report on Disability, 2011). The majority of people with disabilities (80%) live in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), where disability has been shown to disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged sector of the population. Decision makers need to know what works, and what does not, to best invest limited resources aimed at improving the well‐being of people with disabilities in LMICs. Systematic reviews and impact evaluations help answer this question. Improving the availability of existing evidence will help stakeholders to draw on current knowledge and to understand where new research investments can guide decision‐making on appropriate use of resources. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) contribute by showing what evidence there is, and supporting the prioritization of global evidence synthesis needs and primary data collection. Objectives The aim of this EGM is to identify, map and describe existing evidence of effectiveness studies and highlight gaps in evidence base for people with disabilities in LMICs. The map helps identify priority evidence gaps for systematic reviews and impact evaluations. Methods The EGM included impact evaluation and systematic reviews assessing the effect of interventions for people with disabilities and their families/carers. These interventions were categorized across the five components of community‐based rehabilitation matrix; health, education, livelihood, social and empowerment. Included studies looked at outcomes such as, health, education, livelihoods, social inclusion and empowerment, and were published for LMICs from 2000 onwards until January 2018. The searches were conducted between February and March 2018. The EGM is presented as a matrix in which the rows are intervention categories (e.g., health) and subcategories (e.g., rehabilitation) and the column outcome domains (e.g., health) and subdomains (e.g., immunization). Each cell lists the studies for that intervention for those outcomes, with links to the available studies. Included studies were therefore mapped according to intervention and outcomes assessed and additional filters as region, population and study design were also coded. Critical appraisal of included systematic review was done using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews’ rating scale. We also quality‐rated the impact evaluation using a quality assessment tool based on various approaches to risk of bias assessment. Results The map includes 166 studies, of which 59 are systematic reviews and 107 impact evaluation. The included impact evaluation are predominantly quasiexperimental studies (47%). The numbers of studies published each year have increased steadily from the year 2000, with the largest number published in 2017.The studies are unevenly distributed across intervention areas. Health is the most heavily populated area of the map. A total of 118 studies of th...

show abstract

Effects of group-based versus individual-based exercise training on motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder: A randomized controlled study

Abstract: Group-based training produced similar gains in motor performance to individual-based training. Group-based training may be the preferred treatment option due to the associated cost savings.

Cited by 59 publications

References 24 publications

Effectiveness of Interventions for Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder in Physical Therapy Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Effectiveness of Interventions for Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder in Physical Therapy Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Task-oriented interventions for children with developmental co-ordination disorder

Evidence and gap map of studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions for people with disabilities in low‐and middle‐income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About