Measure | Country | Age range | Studies involved | Conclusions and main findings1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
CAMP | Hong Kong | 5–10 yrs. | Strengths: - A promising measure - Distinguishes between children with DCD and TD children - Good test–retest reliability To be developed: - Predictive validity, usability and inter-rater -reliability not studied | |
CBCL | Australia | 3.9–14.10 yrs. | Piek et al. [7] | Strengths: - Some of the items bore a relationship to motor ability, but they should not be used to screen DCD children To be developed: - Discrimination accuracy and sensitivity are poor - No reliability studies done |
ChAS-P | Israel | 4–8 yrs. | Rosenblum [58] | Strengths: - Good item consistency and concurrent validity - Distinguishes between children with and without DCD To be developed: - Small sample size - validity and reliability studied only in the age range of 5–6.5 years -Gender difference not studied - No sensitivity or specificity rates, neither intra-rater nor inter-rater reliability results |
DCDQ | Canada | 5–15 yrs. | Cairney et al. [66]; Caravele et al. [75]; Caravale et al. [54]; Civetta & Hillier [76] Girish et al. [77]; Green et al. [67]; De Milander et al. [89]; Kennedy-Behr et al. [78]; Loh et al. [79]; Martini et al. [48]; Missiuna et al. [31]; Miyachi et al. [80]; | - Most studied and evaluated questionnaire - A valid clinical tool, but not for population-based screening To be developed: - No inter-rater reliability results - No face validity |
DCDDailyQ | Netherland | 5–8 yrs. | Van der Linde et al. [53] | Strengths: - Excellent discriminant validity and predictive validity To be developed: - No reliability results - Usability descriptions and evaluation |