Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics

From: Do video game interventions improve motor outcomes in children with developmental coordination disorder? A systematic review using the ICF framework

Author Sample Size Research Design Age, mean ± SD (range) Gender, boys:girls Control or comparison group? Level of Evidence Downs and Black
Ashkenazi et al. [35] 9 DCD Non-randomised single group 5.6 ± 0.5 (4–6) 7:2 None Level 4 16/27 (59%)
Bonney et al. [36] 43 DCD
21 (VG) 22 (comparison)
RCT VG: 14.3 ± 1.1 (13–16)
Comparison: 14.4 ± 1.05 (13–16)
0:43 Comparison group: Task-oriented Functional Training (45mins, 1x week, 14 weeks) Level 2 20/27 (74%)
Bonney et al. [37] 57 DCD
54 TD
RCT DCD: 7.7 ± 1.0 (6–10)
TD: 7.6 ± 1.0 (6–10)
DCD: 29:28
TD: 28:26
Two DCD groups for variable and repetitive video game practice (also comparison to TD) Level 2 21/27 (78%)
Bonney et al. [38] 57 DCD
54 TD
RCT DCD: 7.7 ± 1.0 (6–10)
TD: 7.6 ± 1.0 (6–10)
DCD: 29:28
TD: 28:26
Two DCD groups for variable and repetitive video game practice (also comparison to TD) Level 2 20/27 (74%)
Bonney et al. [39] 16 DCD Non-randomised single group 14.5 ± 1.0 (13–16) 0:16 None Level 4 19/27 (70%)
Ferguson et al. [40] 46 DCD
19 (VG)
27 (comparison)
Non-randomised with comparison group VG: 7.6 ± 1.1 (6–10)
Comparison: 8.2 ± 1.3 (6–10)
VG: 9:10
Comparison: 15:12
Comparison group: NeuroMotor Task Training
(45–60 min, 2x week, 9 weeks)a
Level 3 18/27 (67%)
Hammond et al. [41] 18 DCD
10 (group A)
8 (group B)
Crossover RCT Group A: 8.5 ± 1.2 (7.1–10.7)
Group B: 9.5 ± 1.4 (7.2–10.9)
Group A: 8:2
Group B: 6:2
Crossover design with school-run motor skills program
(1 h, 1x week, 4 weeks)a
Level 2 17/27 (63%)
Howie et al. [42] 21 DCD
11 (group A)
10 (group B)
Crossover RCT 11 ± 1.0 (10–12) 10:11 Crossover design with no intervention and avoidance of active video gaming Level 2 18/27 (67%)
Jelsma et al. [43] 28 DCD (20 TDb)
14 (group A)
14 (group B)
Cohort study with intervention 8.2 ± 1.4 (5.9–11.3) 18:10 Group A: 6 weeks of intervention. Group B: 6 weeks of no intervention then 6 weeks of intervention Level 3 15/27 (56%)
Jelsma et al. [44] 14 DCDc (20 TDb) Cohort study with self-control intervention 7.7 ± 1.2 (5.9–9.5) 9:5 DCD group: 6 weeks of no intervention followed by 6 weeks of intervention (same as Group B in Jelsma et al. 2014 [43]) Level 4 15/27 (56%)
Ju et al. [45] 24 DCD (12 TD)
12 (VG)
12 (DCD control)
12 (TD control)
RCT DCD VG: 6.8 ± 1.3 (5–10)
DCD control: 7.0 ± 1.5 (5–10)
TD control: 7.3 ± 1.6 (5–10)
DCD VG: 6:6
DCD control: 7:5
TD control: 7:5
DCD and TD control groups had no intervention Level 2 14/27 (52%)
Mombarg et al. [46] 29 DCD
15 (VG)
14 (control)
RCT VG: 9.5 ± 1.8 (7–12)
Control: 9.7 ± 1.1 (7–12)
VG: 12:3
Control: 11:3
Control group had no intervention Level 2 17/27 (63%)
Smits-Engelsman et al. [48] 17 DCD
17 TD
Cohort study with intervention DCD: 7.9 ± 1.2 (6–10)
TD: 7.7 ± 1.1 (6–10)
DCD: 9:8
TD: 9:8
Comparison group of TD with same intervention Level 3 17/27 (63%)
Smits-Engelsman et al. [47] 17 DCD
18 TD
Cohort study with intervention DCD: 8.2 ± 1.1 (6–10)
TD: 8.0 ± 1.2 (6–10)
DCD: 9:8
TD: 9:9
Comparison group of TD with same intervention Level 3 18/27 (67%)
Straker et al. [49] 21 DCD
11 (group A)
10 (group B)
Crossover RCT 11 ± 1.0 (10–12) 10:11 Crossover design with no intervention and avoidance of active video gaming Level 2 18/27 (67%)
  1. SD standard deviation, DCD developmental coordination disorder, TD typically developing children, VG video game group, RCT randomised controlled trial; adifferent duration/frequency to video game intervention; btypically developing children for baseline comparisons only; c14 participants performed the intervention while 28 participants with DCD were included overall