Enhancing Handwriting Performance of Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) Using Computerized Visual Feedback

Bartov, Rachel; Wagner, Michael; Shvalb, Nir; Hochhauser, Michal

doi:10.3390/children10091534

Cited by 2 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Four of the RCT papers were poorly reported and consequently, the risk of bias was unclear in several domains (44)(45)(46)(47). Poor methodology in all four crossover trials resulted in a moderate-high risk of bias (49)(50)(51)(52). The non-randomized trials revealed unclear reporting of methods with some concerns about the fidelity of the interventions provided, however, most other domains revealed a low risk of bias (31, 53, 54).…”

Section: Quality Of Included Studies: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Six RCTs, represented in seven articles (42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48), four randomized crossover design trials (49)(50)(51)(52) and three quasiexperimental designs (31, 53, 54) were included in the systematic review. Eight trials assessed internal FOA compared to external FOA, one trial assessed KOR and the remaining four trials were included due to providing augmented feedback delivered via technology in the intervention group, which was tested against traditional therapy.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six of the included trials provided an intervention that was comparable to a traditional therapeutic intervention directed by a therapist (31,42,43,46,48,50,53). The remaining seven trials completed interventions that followed a strict protocol to perform a motor skill (44,45,47,49,51,52,54). Intervention dosage and frequency of included multi-session trials, differed significantly, ranging from 10 to 60 min in duration, over 3-12 weeks for controlled trials.…”

Section: Inclusion Exclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Types Of Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five trials, represented in four articles, investigated the effect of augmented feedback delivered via technology compared to traditional training methods (31, 42,43,49,50). Three trials used the Nintendo Wii to augment feedback and one used an iPad to deliver immediate visual feedback (49). Control participants received a no feedback handwriting task (49), task specific training (42,43), neuromotor task training (31) and the Jump Ahead Program (50).…”

Section: Types Of Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the influence of feedback on motor skill learning and motor performance for children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review

Welsby,

Hordacre,

Hobbs

et al. 2024

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionChildren with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) have difficulties with learning and performing physical tasks. It is well known that task-specific practice is effective in improving motor skills. Additional feedback during practice may function as a quality improvement mechanism and therefore enhance motor skill outcomes.AimsTo investigate the effect of different forms of feedback on motor learning and motor performance in children with DCD.MethodsA systematic review was conducted (registration CRD42020175118) to investigate the effectiveness of different types of feedback, compared to other forms of feedback, or no additional feedback, on motor learning and motor performance outcomes in children with DCD. The search was run across six electronic databases (last search January 2024). Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed the quality of included studies, and extracted relevant data. A narrative synthesis was performed and included studies that assessed motor learning and/or performance outcomes following an intervention that delivered a specific form of feedback in comparison to another form of feedback or no specific feedback.Results14 articles from 13 trials were included in this review. Feedback was delivered by providing various forms of feedback, including: knowledge of results, focus of attention and augmented feedback delivered via technology. No significant differences were found between different forms of feedback for motor learning or performance outcomes for children with DCD. Interventions that used technology (with augmented feedback) to deliver the intervention were found to be as effective as traditional therapy. All groups who participated in therapy, regardless of the presence or type of feedback received, improved in overall scores on a motor performance outcome assessment.ConclusionDespite the clear rationale for using feedback-oriented interventions for children with DCD, there is surprisingly limited and low-quality research. There is no clear evidence that one form of feedback is more effective than another, although it appears that feedback delivered via technology may be as effective as feedback delivered in traditional therapy interventions for children with DCD. Further exploration is required from appropriately powered and well-designed trials.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=175118, identifier (CRD42020175118).

show abstract