Poor co‐ordination in 5 year olds: A screening test for use in schools

Johnston, Olive; Crawford, J; Short, Helen; Smyth, T. R.; Møller, Jørgen

doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.1987.tb00235.x

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The prevalence rate for poor coordination will depend on the test used. The rates described in other studies vary between 5 and 15% (Gubbay 1975, Rutter et al 1960, Johnston et al 1987 and our rates using the McCarthy Scales as a secondary screen were around 7%. Screening tests with pass/fail scores, however, do not reveal how the child performed the test.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Poor Coordinationsupporting

confidence: 45%

Poorly coordinated children: a survey of 95 cases

Johnston¹,

Short²,

Crawford³

1987

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening of 717 5-year-olds and 757 7-year-olds, found 55 of the former and 77 of the latter possibly to be poorly coordinated. Further diagnostic testing with the McCarthy Motor Scales confirmed the problem in a total of 95 children, a prevalence of 6.4%. Neurological examination showed 43% of the 5-year-olds and 21% of the 7-year-olds to have choreiform movements. Of the total 95, proprioception was abnormal in 40%, but abnormal muscle tone present in only 4%. An increased prevalence of hearing loss and obesity and a history of developmental delays was found. Low birth weights, prematurity, post-maturity and perinatal problems were significantly associated with poor coordination. Socioeconomic status was not a significant factor. The difficulties of testing and measuring poor coordination and the need for more precise measures are discussed. Follow-up of at risk children at age 5 with tests of motor coordination is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Prevalence Of Poor Coordinationsupporting

confidence: 45%

Poorly coordinated children: a survey of 95 cases

Johnston¹,

Short²,

Crawford³

1987

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As their specific motor dysfunction is often associated with another dysfunction, their presentations are probably best understood under an overarching diagnosis such as NDD (Whitmore and Bax 1999). Different studies use different instruments to differentiate criteria (Gillberg and Rasmussen 1982, Gillberg and Rasmussen 1983, Denckla 1985, Johnson et al 1987, Werry et al 1987, Benton 1994, Wright and Sudgen 1996, Blondis 2000, Christiansen 2000, Landgren et al 1998: this study is no exception. More standardization is required before comparisons can be made across studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Children with ADHD and motor dysfunction compared with children with ADHD only

Tervo¹,

Azuma²,

Fogas³

et al. 2002

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to identify group differences in children with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder and motor dysfunction (ADHD-MD) and ADHD only, and to evaluate the medication responsiveness of ADHD-MD. Sixtythree children (49 males and 14 females; mean age 9 years 10 months, SD 2 years 10 months) underwent a triple blind, placebo-controlled crossover study evaluating two dose levels of methylphenidate (0.3 mg/kg and 0.05 mg/kg, twice daily) and placebo. Forty-nine trials were completed. Nineteen were children with ADHD-MD, 44 had ADHD only. Behavior and functioning were assessed at home and at school. Treatment effects were assessed using the Abbreviated Symptom Questionnaire for Parents and Teachers. Children with ADHD-MD were more likely to have severe ADHD-combined type and other neurodevelopmental and behavioral problems. Both groups of children had a linear dose response to medication (placebo, low, high) and there was no evidence of a group by dose interaction or an overall group effect at home or school. The lack of group effect suggests that these children responded to medication like the other subgroups.

show abstract

“…Some tests have been developed for a specific purpose. For example, the South Australian Motor Test (Johnston et al 1987, Smyth et al 1991 was developed as a screening test for 5-year-olds. In other instances, investigators have devised tests specifically for use in their research (e.g.…”

Section: Testing Motor Abilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired motor skill (clumsiness) in otherwise normal children: a review

Smyth

1992

Child

315

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some children, who are otherwise normal, experience unusual difficulties with the acquisition and performance of motor skills. These children are commonly described as being clumsy. Impaired performance of motor skills, to the degree experienced by clumsy children, is unlikely to present a serious problem. However, a review of the literature suggests that significant associated and secondary emotional problems are common. In particular, such problems are likely to result in children not achieving their full potential. Therefore, it is important that the cause of affected children's impaired motor skills be recognized early so that these problems can be avoided, or at least minimized, by a sympathetic understanding of their difficulties. The problem is that, whilst severely affected children can be readily recognized, identification of mildly and moderately clumsy children is difficult.

show abstract

Poor co‐ordination in 5 year olds: A screening test for use in schools

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Poorly coordinated children: a survey of 95 cases

Poorly coordinated children: a survey of 95 cases

Children with ADHD and motor dysfunction compared with children with ADHD only

Impaired motor skill (clumsiness) in otherwise normal children: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About