Next Article in Journal
Orofacial Features, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life, and Exposure to Bullying in Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A Cross-Sectional Study
Previous Article in Journal
Confirming the Suitability of a Gentamicin Dosing Strategy in Neonates Using the Population Pharmacokinetic Approach with Truncated Sampling Duration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/children11080899
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between Motor Skills, Occupational Performance, and Mental Health in Japanese Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Correlational Study

by
Masanori Yasunaga
1,
Hideki Miyaguchi
2,3,*,
Chinami Ishizuki
2,
Yosuke Kita
4,5 and
Akio Nakai
6,*
1
Health and Counseling Center, Campus Life Health Support and Consultation Center, Osaka University, Toyonaka 560-0043, Japan
2
Department of Human Behavior Science of Occupational Therapy, Graduate School of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 734-8551, Japan
3
University of Kochi He alth Scienses, Kochi 781-5103, Japan
4
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Letters, Keio University, Tokyo 108-8345, Japan
5
Cognitive Brain Research Unit (CBRU), Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
6
Research Institute for Education & Graduate School of Clinical Education, Mukogawa Women’s University, Nishinomiya 663-8558, Japan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2024, 11(8), 899; https://doi.org/10.3390/children11080899 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 20 June 2024 / Revised: 21 July 2024 / Accepted: 24 July 2024 / Published: 26 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Updates and Future Perspectives of Developmental Coordination Disorders in Children: From Classroom to Lab, and Back)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Motor skills have been linked to executive functions (EFs) in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). However, the traits of other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, remain overlooked. Therefore, this study explored the association between motor skills, occupational performance, and mental health in older kindergarten children with DCD and other NDDs. Overall, 95 participants aged 5–6 years were included in this study and divided into four groups: DCD traits (DCD-t), DCD-t + NDD traits (DCD-t + NDD-t), NDD-t-only, and typically developing children. Motor skills, EFs, and mental health were assessed using the DCD Questionnaire (DCDQ-J) and Movement Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition, School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (S-AMPS), and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), respectively. The DCD-t + NDD-t group exhibited a strong correlation between the S-AMPS motor skill score and the DCDQ-J fine motor skill score (r = 0.88, p < 0.001) and between the total DCDQ-J score and the SDQ Total Difficulties Score (r = −0.94, p < 0.001). The findings indicate that children with DCD-t and NDD-t are more likely to experience EF and mental health problems than those with DCD-t only.

1. Introduction

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) [1], developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is defined as markedly inferior acquisition and performance of coordination skills compared with expected skills for an individual’s age along with the opportunities to learn and use the skills. Deficiencies in motor skills lead to difficulties in activities of daily living, including infrequent participation [2], decreased self-efficacy [3], school absenteeism and bullying [4,5], and mental health disorders [6]. Therefore, early detection and intervention for children with DCD are crucial [7,8].
Previous studies have reported that 30–50% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) also have DCD [9,10,11]. Children with coordination difficulties are more likely to be inattentive and hyperactive [12].
Furthermore, approximately half of children with ADHD meet the diagnostic criteria for deficits in attention, motor control, and perception (DAMP) syndrome [13], a concept reported by studies [14]. However, before the DSM-4 text revision [15], the coexistence of DCD and pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) was not recognized. However, coordination difficulties in ASD have long been recognized, and coordination disorder characteristics have been reported in approximately 80% of children with ASD [16]. To address these findings, the coexistence of DCD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was recognized in the DSM-5 [1]. In addition, a study using the Japanese version of the DCD Questionnaire (DCDQ-J) in Japanese boys with PDD reported that approximately 40% of the participants were clumsy, suggesting that the Autism Diagnostic Interview—Revised questionnaire correlated with the total score and subscales of the DCDQ-J [17]. Gillberg [14] found that most children diagnosed with severe DAMP syndrome have characteristics of autism, with two-thirds of the cases meeting the diagnostic criteria for ASD.
These findings indicate the necessity of closely examining the association between the development of ADHD characteristics (e.g., coordination movement, executive function (EF), reward system, and time processing) and ASD characteristics (e.g., social communication). DCD is an important characteristic of children with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). Children with DCD have been reported to have EF problems [18], and their performance in EF tasks may be poorer because of primary motor deficits associated with the disorder [18,19]. EFs are divided into inhibition, shifting, and updating [20]. The evaluation of EF requires the assessment of these three components. Furthermore, children with DCD and ADHD have been reported to have significantly lower working memory (WM) scores than normal children [21,22], and they experience difficulties in planning actions and maintaining task performance [23].
Based on the ADHD characteristics [24] that coexist with DCD or the so-called DAMP syndrome and ASD [25], it was important to conduct an assessment that considers the association between coordination and EF problems [26,27] during interventions implementation [28]. Several studies have reported an association between DCD and EF issues [29,30,31,32]. However, when examining the association between DCD and EF, few studies control for comorbid disorders of DCD and examine the correlation [27,33]. In their review, Fogel et al. report that many neuropsychological assessment tools, which follow a bottom-up approach to examining EF components, may be meaningless to participants and primarily focus on dysfunction [27]. Conversely, Brown et al. argue that assessments should incorporate a top-down approach from a global perspective, emphasizing the client’s living environment [34]. Meachon et al. indicate that DCD is not merely a motor issue but is strongly associated with higher cognitive processes, such as EF [35]. Therefore, they advocate for the comprehensive assessment and treatment of DCD. Given these points, it is crucial to conduct a top-down EF assessment after distinguishing between cases of DCD alone and those with comorbid developmental disorders to investigate the relationship between DCD and EF.
According to international recommendations, activity- and participation-oriented approaches, such as Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP), provide a high level of evidence for DCD interventions [11]. Although several studies have reported on interventions for children with DCD and ADHD [36,37], no study has been conducted on interventions with modified protocols based on other characteristics, such as DAMP syndrome.
Many studies have used the Performance Quality Rating Scale [38,39] and Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) [40,41] as indicators to examine the effectiveness of interventions, with occupational performance as the primary outcome. The school version of AMPS (S-AMPS) is an assessment tool that evaluates occupational performance and is related to EF [42,43]. This performance-based assessment tool is used to observe children in places where they spend their daily lives, such as kindergartens and elementary schools. The S-AMPS allows for a detailed evaluation of children’s daily life situations and occupational performance (a part of EF) in preschool activities, making it viable for evaluating the EF of children with DCD at the activity/participation level [28]. Therefore, the S-AMPS was considered as one of the options for measuring EF in a performance-based manner.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the association between motor skills assessed using the DCDQ-J and Movement Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition (MABC-2), occupational performance evaluated using the S-AMPS, and mental health assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in older kindergarten children. Furthermore, this study focused on older kindergarten children with only DCD traits (DCD-t) and with DCD-t and NDD traits (NDD-t) to confirm the differences in the correlation between motor skills, EF, and occupational performance related to mental health, while also examining the need for a comprehensive assessment of children with DCD. The significance of this study is to clarify the association between motor skills and EF. This will contribute to developing a comprehensive assessment of each characteristic of the comorbid disorders in DCD and to tailor intervention strategies based on individual disability characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

In this cross-sectional study, children aged 5–6 years attending certified childcare centers in the Kyushu and Chugoku regions of Japan were recruited for approximately 2 weeks in December 2015 and January 2017.
Out of 165 children, 95 participated in the study (mean age 75.80 ± 3.64 months, 42 boys and 53 girls). The study was conducted with the consent of the parents and the childcare centers. Certified childcare centers in Japan follow the national curriculum. Although the socioeconomic status of the parents, such as education and income levels, was not surveyed, the study focused on children from middle-class households where the impact of parental educational deficiencies and financial problems was minimal. The selection criteria included children aged 5 to 6 years who were enrolled in the certified childcare centers, with the agreement of the kindergarten principals and consent from the parents. The exclusion criteria were children with severe intellectual or physical disabilities that made communication with others extremely difficult, as verified by the teachers. Figure 1 shows a flowchart of the data collection process.
We filtered the target population to children aged 5 and 6 years because it has been reported [7] that children with DCD need to receive early intervention, that the children must understand all assessments that will be performed, and that 5 years of age is the appropriate age to start understanding the characteristics of clumsiness. This is also because the DCDQ-J targets children aged 5 years and over. The definition of DCD-t in this study was based on data from 5-year-old children obtained by Nakai et al. [44], with a total score of 40 points or less on the DCDQ-J.
The sample size was calculated using G*Power 3.1.9.7 [45] with a two-tailed test, an effect size of 0.3, a significance level of 0.05, and a power of 0.8. Consequently, the minimum sample size required was 90, assuming a dropout rate of 10%.

2.2. Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Epidemiology Research Ethics Review Committee of Hiroshima University (no. E-761) and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from the centers’ principals, head teachers, and homeroom teachers upon written and verbal explanations. Additionally, consent was obtained from the parents after written and verbal explanations by the homeroom teachers. Participants’ questionnaires (DCDQ and SDQ) and test results (S-AMPS and M-ABC2) were stored in a locked locker, accessible only to researchers. Parents were informed in writing that they could request access to their child’s results.

2.3. Instruments

2.3.1. Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire

The DCDQ-J was developed and standardized through collaboration between Nakai et al. [44] and Wilson et al. [46], the creators of the DCDQ from Alberta Health Services and the University of Calgary, Canada, according to international guidelines [11]. The DCDQ-J is a tool used to assess children aged 5–15 years and comprises 15 items covering 3 subscales: “control during movement” (6 items), “fine motor (FM)” (4 items), and “general coordination” (5 items). Parents were asked to rate each item on a five-point scale for their children compared with others of the same age. The total scores range from 15 to 75, with lower scores indicating increasingly severe motor coordination problems. A developmental motor coordination disorder is diagnosed if the total score is below the fifth percentile and is suspected if it is between the sixth and fifteenth percentiles. The reliability, validity, high sensitivity, and specificity of the DCDQ-J have been confirmed [46,47]. Cronbach’s alpha for the DCDQ is 0.94 [48]; for the DCDQ-J subscales, the coefficients are 0.91 for control during movement, 0.91 for fine motor/handwriting, and 0.81 for general coordination [49].

2.3.2. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

The SDQ is a questionnaire developed by Goodman [50] for behavioral screening from infancy to school age and can assess participants’ strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, the SDQ can be used to understand trends in peer relationships based on children’s behavioral and emotional aspects, which can facilitate reflections on their daily lives. The SDQ includes 4 subscales related to difficulties (conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, emotionality, and peer relationship problems) and one subscale related to strength (prosocial behavior), with each subscale comprised of 5 items (25 items). Childcare workers, teachers, and parents rate each item on a three-point scale, with 0, 1, and 2 points indicating “not applicable”, “somewhat true”, and “applicable”, respectively [48]. The need for support was evaluated on three levels based on the total score for each subcategory: high need, some need, and low need. The Total Difficulties Score (TDS) was calculated from the total score of the four difficulty-related subscales.
Based on the data on 5-year-old children from Iida et al. [51] and the Japanese version of the teacher SDQ [52], the standard value corresponding to NDD-t was the 16th percentile from the average of each sex. The TDS was 14 (9) or higher, the prosocial behavior score was 3 (5) or higher, the conduct problems score was 4 (3) or higher, the hyperactivity/inattention score was 6 (4) or higher, the emotional problems score was 4 (3) or higher, and the peer problems score was 3 (2) or lower. In this study, NDD-t was classified based on scores within the 16th percentile of the TDS or any of its subitems.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the SDQ subscales are as follows: 0.83 for TDS, 0.70 for conduct problems, 0.81 for hyperactivity/inattention, 0.74 for emotion symptoms, 0.67 for peer problems, and 0.84 for prosocial behavior [51].

2.3.3. School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills

The S-AMPS is the only assessment tool designed and standardized to assess the quality of students’ occupational performance [53]. This tool does not focus on diagnosis, sociability, or physical, cognitive, and psychological functions but assesses the quality of occupational performance based on motor and process skills. Motor skills pertain to physical effort, whereas process skills relate to efficiency during occupational performance [54].
The S-AMPS is comprised of 16 motor and 20 process skill items. Each item is scored on a four-point scale and represents the quality of the smallest observable units of occupational performance in the form of observable goal-oriented activities. This tool could be applied to children aged ≥3 years. The cutoff value was set at 2.0 logit for motor skills and 1.0 logit for process skills, which indicates the adaptation of the assessed child to the classroom task. The reliability and validity of the S-AMPS have been confirmed [55]. Cronbach’s alpha of the S-AMPS is 0.7 [56].

2.3.4. Movement Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition

According to international guidelines, the MABC-2 is recommended as a diagnostic tool for pediatric DCD [11], and its reliability and validity have been confirmed [57]. This tool consists of eight tasks encompassing fine motor skills and gross motor skills, organized into three subcategories: manual dexterity (three tasks: pointing coins, threading beads, and a drawing trial), aiming and catching (two tasks: catching a beanbag and throwing a beanbag onto a mat), and balance (three tasks: one-leg Balance, walking with heels raised, and jumping on mats). It consists of eight tasks, including fine and gross motor skills, and three subcategories of subtests: manual dexterity, aiming and catching, and balance. In addition to the total score, this test can calculate standardized scores for each sub-item based on performance speed and other factors.
The 5th and 15th percentiles were set as the cut-off values. Children who fall below the fifth percentile are deemed to have a serious motor function disorder, whereas those who fall between the sixth and fifteenth percentiles are deemed to be at risk of a motor function disorder [58]. Since the standardization of the Japanese version of the M-ABC2 [59,60] is still in progress, we employed original data from the United Kingdom for the calculations [57]. Cronbach’s alpha of the MABC-2 is 0.6 [59].

2.4. Assessment Method

The S-AMPS and MABC-2 were administered by two occupational therapists with more than 10 years of clinical experience who attended a workshop on the S-AMPS held in Japan and obtained the necessary license and participated in a workshop on the MABC-2 led by Akio Nakai and Yosuke Kita. The DCDQ-J and SDQ were administered by homeroom teachers after receiving instructions on the assessment methods.

2.4.1. Implementation of DCDQ-J and SDQ

Each question in the DCDQ-J includes activities commonly seen in Japanese kindergartens. Thus, it is easy for teachers to check by recalling their usual observations of children. Therefore, the DCDQ-J was used as a screening tool.
The SDQ was developed by Goodman et al. in 1997 and is used as a general measure of mental health in various countries [61]. A Japanese version of the SDQ is available and can be downloaded for nonprofit purposes. The SDQ comprises a small number of questions and can be checked in a relatively short time. Additionally, the content of the questions aligns with activities in kindergarten. Thus, it is easy for teachers who regularly observe children to use these tools.
Data were collected as previously described by Wilson et al. [46] for the DCDQ-J and Goodman [50] for the SDQ. The questionnaires were distributed to the homeroom teachers of the classes in which the participants were enrolled. The teachers were asked to recall and check their daily activities for one month in December 2015 and January 2017.

2.4.2. Implementation of S-AMPS

S-AMPS requires no special equipment and can assess the quality of task performance even when different tasks are used between the initial assessment and re-evaluation. It was chosen because it allows for the selection of tasks that align with kindergarten events and seasons.
Data were collected as previously described [53]. Two certified S-AMPS evaluators (OTs) interviewed seven homeroom teachers to determine the tasks. Teachers selected two tasks that were neither too difficult nor too easy for the children. The tasks were conducted in the children’s usual classrooms (with at least five children and one teacher). The children were instructed to retrieve tools and items from their usual places. The observation period for the two tasks was approximately 40 min, conducted from December 2015 to January 2016 or from January to February 2017.

2.4.3. Implementation of M-ABC2

The Japanese version of the MABC-2, which was developed based on a contract between Akio Nakai and Pearson Education Limited, was used. The MABC-2 version (AGE BAND 1) used in this study was chosen as it was suitable and familiar for Japanese children.
Data were collected as previously described [57]. The two occupational therapists conducted one-on-one tests with the participating children in a quiet and private room at the kindergarten during free time in the morning or afternoon on weekdays when there were no group activities. Each test took approximately 25 min. The evaluations were performed from December 2015 to January 2016 or from January to February 2017.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated for all key variables, including mean, standard deviation, median, and range, providing an overview of the participants’ characteristics and primary variables under study. Moreover, many measurements did not follow a normal distribution; therefore, non-parametric analysis was used. The reliability of the four assessments (DCDQ, SDQ, S-AMPS, and M-ABC2) was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha. Normality was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test for the four groups (DCD-t, NDD-t + DCD-t, NDD-t not DCD, and typically developing (TD) children). Using one-way ANOVA and the Kruskal–Wallis test, we compared the total scores and mean values of the sub-items of the DCDQ-J, SDQ, S-AMPS, and M-ABC2 in the four groups. Pairwise multiple comparisons (Bonferroni’s method) were performed for the total scores and sub-items that showed significant differences. Furthermore, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient analysis was used to investigate the association between the total score and the sub-items of the DCDQ-J, SDQ, S-AMPS, and M-ABC2 in 95 children and the 4 groups (DCD-t, NDD-t + DCD-t, NDD-t not DCD, and TD). The significance of the results was inferred for p < 0.05. The sample size for the correlation analysis was determined using G*Power 3.1.9.7 [45]. A power above 0.8 was regarded as acceptable.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Results

Of the 95 children, 17 had a DCDQ-J score of ≤40 and 47 were classified as having NDD-t based on the SDQ-TDS or subitems (16th percentile of each item). The breakdown of children within the 16th percentile in the TDS and subitems was as follows: 16 for the TDS, 4 for conduct problems, 21 for hyperactivity/inattention, 10 for emotional problems, 22 for prosocial behavior, and 34 for peer problems. Based on these results, the children were divided into four groups: DCD-t (n = 5), NDD-t + DCD-t (n = 12), NDD-t-only (n = 35), and TD (n = 43).
Table 1 shows the results of the four assessments including DCDQ-J, SDQ, S-AMPS, and MABC-2 for the four groups. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four tests used in this study were as follows: For the DCDQ-J subscales, the coefficients are 0.90 for control during movement, 0.95 for fine motor/handwriting, and 0.82 for general coordination. For the SDQ subscales, the coefficients are 0.90 for TDS, 0.67 for conduct problems, 0.85 for hyperactivity/inattention, 0.80 for emotion symptoms, 0.78 for peer problems, and 0.78 for prosocial behavior. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the S-AMPS is 0.86, and for the MABC-2 it is 0.80.
In the DCD-t + NDD-t group, two children had a total score in the fifth percentile on the MABC-2, and three had a total score in the fifth to the sixteenth percentile. No children in the other groups had an MABC-2 total score in the fifth or sixteenth percentile. Furthermore, seven children in the DCD-t + NDD-t group and nine in the NDD-t-only group had SDQ-TDS scores in the sixteenth percentile.

3.2. Association between Motor Skills, Occupational Performance, and Mental Health of 95 Participants

The DCDQ-J, SDQ, S-AMPS, and MABC-2 correlation coefficients were calculated for the 95 children (Table 2). Regarding the association between motor skills and occupational performance, the DCDQ-J total score correlated weakly to moderately with the S-AMPS motor (r = 0.23, p = 0.028) and process skill scores (r = 0.23, p = 0.023). The DCDQ-J FM score correlated weakly to moderately with the S-AMPS motor (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) and process skill scores (r = 0.38, p < 0.001). Regarding the association between motor skills and mental health, the DCDQ-J FM score correlated moderately with the SDQ-TDS (r = −0.44, p < 0.001), SDQ conduct problems score (r = −0.48, p < 0.001), and SDQ peer problems score (r = −0.49, p < 0.001). Regarding the association between occupational performance and mental health, the S-AMPS process skill score correlated moderately with the SDQ-TDS (r = −0.43, p < 0.001) and hyperactivity/inattention score (r = −0.50, p < 0.001).

3.3. Association between Motor Skills, Occupational Performance, and Mental Health of Each of the Four Groups

The DCDQ-J, SDQ, S-AMPS, and M-ABC2 correlation coefficients were calculated for the four groups (DCD-t, NDD-t + DCD-t, NDD-t + not DCD-t, and TD children) (Table 3). Regarding motor skills and occupational performance, there was no correlation between occupational performance (S-AMPS), motor skills (DCDQ-J and M-ABC2), and SDQ in the DCD-t group. Hereafter, we will discuss the results pertaining to the NDD-t + DCD-t, NDD-t + not DCD-t, and TD groups, excluding the DCD-t group.
Regarding the motor skills and occupational performance of the NDD-t + DCD-t group, the DCDQ-J FM was strongly correlated with the S-AMPS motor skill (r = 0.88, p < 0.001) and S-AMPS process skill (r = 0.70, p = 0.012). Furthermore, the S-AMPS motor skills were moderate to strongly correlated with the M-ABC2 total score (r = 0.83, p < 0.001), MD (r = 0.77, p = 0.004), and Bal (r = 0.66, p = 0.020). The S-AMPS process skill moderately correlated with the M-ABC2 total score (r = 0.62, p = 0.031), MD (r = 0.64, p = 0.025), and Bal (r = 0.60, p = 0.020). Regarding motor skills and mental health, the DCDQ-J total score was strongly correlated with the SDQ-TDS (r = −0.94, p < 0.001), prosocial behavior (r = 0.72, p = 0.008), conduct problems (r = −0.79, p < 0.001), hyperactivity/inattention (r = −0.93, p < 0.001), and peer problems (r = −0.75, p = 0.005).
The M-ABC2 total score was strongly correlated with the SDQ TDS (r = −0.82, p < 0.001), the SDQ prosocial behavior (r = 0.84, p < 0.001), and the SDQ peer relations (r = −0.84, p < 0.001).
Regarding occupational performance and mental health, the S-AMPS motor skills moderately correlated with the SDQ peer problems (r = −0.65, p = 0.021) and prosocial behavior (r = 0.64, p = 0.023). Process skill was moderately correlated with the SDQ-TDS (r = −0.66, p = 0.019) and peer problems (r = −0.62, p = 0.031).
There was no correlation between motor skills and occupational performance in the NDD-t + non-DCD-t group. Regarding motor skills and mental health, there was a moderate correlation between the DCDQ-J FM and the SDQ peer problems (r = −0.46, p = 0.006). Regarding occupational performance and mental health, the S-AMPS process skill was moderately correlated with the SDQ-TDS (r = −0.55, p < 0.001) and hyperactivity/inattention (r = −0.54, p < 0.001).
In the TD group, there was a weak correlation between the DCDQ-J-FM and the S-AMPS process skills (r = 0.36, p = 0.017). Regarding motor skills and mental health, the DCDQ-J FM was moderately correlated with the SDQ-TDS (r = −0.46, p = 0.002), conduct problems (r = −0.43, p = 0.004), and hyperactivity/inattention (r = −0.42, p = 0.005).
Several correlations have been identified between occupational performance and mental health. The S-AMPS process skill was moderately correlated with the SDQ-TDS (r = −0.48, p < 0.001), hyperactivity/inattention (r = −0.49, p < 0.001), and peer problems (r = −0.51, p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

4.1. Overall Summary

This study examined the relationships between motor skills (DCDQ-J, M-ABC2), occupational performance (S-AMPS), and mental health (SDQ) in older kindergarten children. Among the 95 participants, 17 had DCD traits (DCD-t), and 47 had neurodevelopmental disorder traits (NDD-t). The children were divided into four groups, and associations among occupational performance, motor skills, and mental health were analyzed. The analysis revealed multiple moderate to high correlations in the DCD-t + NDD-t group compared to the other groups. These findings suggest that children suspected of having DCD often have comorbid NDDs or mental health issues, emphasizing the need for early and comprehensive evaluation.

4.2. Correlation between Occupational Performance, Motor Skills, and Mental Health

Previous studies have reported that the S-AMPS process skills can identify components of EF [42,43] and assess elements of EF from an occupational performance perspective [28]. This study showed a significant correlation between the FM skills of the DCDQ-J and the motor and process skills assessed by the S-AMPS, which are consistent with the previous studies [62,63] that showed significant correlations between DCD motor skills and EF [26] and between FM function and EF in DCD. This is because the correlation between motor skills and EF is activated in the same brain regions, including the cerebellum, prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and striatum [64,65]. The brain regions, including the prefrontal cortex, cerebellum and its connecting structures, basal ganglia, and striatum, are involved in cognitive and motor tasks with EF as a correlate of behavior [66,67]. Additionally, FM skills (MABC-2 MD) require speed and accuracy. Children with DCD have impaired motor skills when they perform tasks with high executive demands, such as speed and accuracy, and WM needs [68]. These findings indirectly indicate an association between motor skills and EF. Therefore, assessment of EF in addition to motor skills in children with DCD is necessary.
Furthermore, a moderate association was observed between motor skills, occupational performance, and mental health. This is because the high proportion of children with a poor prognosis based on the SDQ total score is specific to children with coordination difficulties [69]. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize the elements that can hinder early motor development [70]. Early intervention plays an important role in prevention of the negative developmental trajectories and psychosocial effects associated with DCD [71]. These findings indicate the importance of assessing motor skills, EF, and mental health as early as 5 years of age or older when DCD can be diagnosed.

4.3. Usefulness of the S-AMPS for DCD Assessment

The S-AMPS can evaluate WM and planning skills in group activities, which are two components of EF that are weak in children with DCD and concurrent impairments [54,72]. Additionally, the S-AMPS process skills can be observed in EF, WM, inhibition, and shifting [28]. Mayes et al. [73] reported that formal EF tests do not capture everyday difficulties or planning issues. However, the S-AMPS can provide a detailed assessment of occupational performance (a component of EF) in informal preschool activities. Considering this, we used the S-AMPS as a primary outcome alongside motor skills in this study. Previous studies have reported issues with EF in children with DCD and its association with motor skills [29,30,31,32,62,74,75]. However, these studies may not have clarified whether the children had comorbid disorders, like ADHD, that impair EF [19]. This study evaluated the utility of the S-AMPS by distinguishing the EF characteristics and neural bases in ADHD, DCD, and their overlap. Approximately 50% of children and young adults with ADHD have difficulty regulating their behavior and exhibit high emotional instability [76]. Impaired inhibitory control is a core deficit of ADHD [77,78]. Individuals with ADHD also experience planning problems, reduced cerebellar volume, hypoactivation, and decreased temporal lobe volume [79,80]. These brain abnormalities correlate with the severity of ADHD symptoms and sensorimotor integration [81]. Studies on functional brain activity indicate dysfunction in the fronto–striatal–thalamo–temporal network during inhibition tasks in children with ADHD [82,83]. Children with DCD exhibit poor performance in visuospatial/verbal WM, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and planning [29,30,74]. A study by Querne et al. [84] found response inhibition dysfunction in children with DCD, suggesting issues with the brain networks related to attention and the prefrontal cortex.
Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance intervention has been shown to improve the functional connectivity of the default mode network and the right anterior cingulate cortex in children with DCD, which is associated with improvements in motor skills [36]. Children with co-occurring DCD and ADHD demonstrate challenges in behavioral control due to ADHD, as well as negative changes in sensorimotor integration and visuospatial attention/response inhibition areas compared to TD children.
The S-AMPS provides a top-down evaluation of activities and participation, revealing several aspects of EF [42,43]. It is crucial for assessing the activity and participation levels of children with DCD-t and for evaluating EF elements from an occupational performance perspective [28]. These findings suggest that the S-AMPS is a useful tool for evaluating motor skills and a broad range of EF in children with DCD and NDD.

4.4. Correlation between Occupational Performance and Motor Skills of Each of the Four Groups

In this study, a significant correlation was observed between occupational performance and motor skills in the NDD-t + DCD-t group and the TD group, but no correlation was found in the other two groups. In particular, we will discuss the relationship between occupational performance and motor skills in the NDD-t + DCD-t group.
Children diagnosed with ADHD or ASD often experience challenges in executive functioning [85]. Executive functional disorders are thought to be at the core of poor academic and occupational performance, contributing to several behavioral symptoms of NDDs [18,86,87]. Inattention and impulsive behavior in ADHD and adaptive behavioral difficulties in ASD are closely related to impairments in EF [88,89]. Furthermore, attention inhibition greatly impairs EF in children with ADHD [90]. One study reported that ADHD issues lie in inhibition rather than attention-switching [91]. Inhibition of attention may impede the ability to respond to a task [20].
In contrast, deficits in cognitive flexibility, planning [92], and generativity [93] have been reported as EF declines in pure ASD. Cognitive inflexibility results in social deficits [94] and difficulty in adapting to changing events [95].
These findings indicate an association between motor skills and EF in children with DCD and in those with comorbid disorders. A weak correlation between motor skills and occupational performance was observed among the 95 participants in this study. Therefore, identifying children suspected of having DCD who also have some form of neurodevelopmental or psychiatric issues [11] might help in understanding the characteristics of motor skills and EF along with selecting an appropriate approach. The findings also indicate that children with NDD-t and DCD-t have overlapping difficulties in EF associated with ASD and ADHD compared with children with DCD-t only, indicating a correlation between motor skills and EF.

4.5. Correlation between Motor Skills and Mental Health and between Occupational Performance and the Mental Health of Each of the Four Groups

This study identified correlations between motor skills, mental health, and occupational performance in the NDD-t + DCD-t, NDD-t + non-DCD-t, and TD groups. The results underscore the importance of early mental health assessment alongside motor skills evaluation. We focus on the reasons for this in the DCD-t + NDD-t group, where a strong correlation was noted between mental health and motor skills or occupational performance.
The NDD-t + DCD-t group showed a high correlation between the DCDQ-J total score and the SDQ subitem scores. Sirama et al. [96] report that suspected DCD is associated with an increased risk of emotional and behavioral problems in preschool children, and that the co-occurrence of autistic traits may be important for this association. These findings are consistent with those in our study.
Additionally, Green et al. and Zeng et al. reported that nonmotor skills, such as behavioral and socialization difficulties, might be associated with reduced physical activity [97,98]. Furthermore, opportunities for motor learning ultimately decrease [96]. Additionally, poor motor skills in early childhood can lead to a loss of opportunities for active group participation [94] and mental health problems, which are secondary to motor-related problems, that emerge as children enter elementary school and begin to meet social and peer demands [99,100].
These findings imply a strong need to conduct assessments and interventions for motor skills and mental health during early childhood. In this study, S-AMPS motor skills were moderately correlated with SDQ-TDS, peer problems, and prosocial behavior, whereas process skills were moderately correlated with SDQ-TDS and peer problems.
This finding is similar to the findings of existing studies that challenges in EF skills are not only associated with academic performance [101] but also with emotional and physical well-being [102,103] and that children with multiple comorbidities tend to have impaired EF abilities [92,104]. Based on the results of three assessments for each group, this suggests that, despite biases in the sample size and results, a high correlation exists between motor skills, EF, and mental health items in the DCD-t + NDD-t group.
Gu et al. [105] emphasize the importance of focusing on motor function and EF, as difficulties in motor coordination in children with ASD can affect social communication through EF. Children in the DCD-t + NDD-t group were more likely to have EF and mental health problems than children in the DCD-t-only group. The results suggest that it is important to test EF using the S-AMPS and to assess the comorbidity of other NDDs.

4.6. Limitations

This study has some limitations. First, this study had a small sample size and examined only children aged 5 years. Second, the correlation between the S-AMPS score and the DCDQ-J or MABC-2 score was not investigated in other age groups.
The association between EF and motor ability might change with development as children age and mature. Therefore, further studies with a larger sample size and a wider age range are warranted to investigate this association. Third, only a small proportion of the participants exhibited “severe clumsiness”, which limits the interpretation of these results. Fourth, tests taken by parents and other individuals were not included in the EF tests. Using rating-based EF (e.g., the Behavior Rating Inventory for Executive Function [BRIEF]—Preschool [106]) and performance-based EF (e.g., the EF Task Battery) [107] assessments is important to provide a complete picture of EF in preschool children. Furthermore, using parent evaluations of EF, such as BRIEF, and performance-based measures for children with EF is crucial to gain insights into the association between motor skills and EF in preschool children [31]. Fifth, some factors, such as sex, attention, ADHD-Rating Scale score, Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire score, socioeconomic status, and environmental factors (parental physical activity) were not considered in the interpretation of the results.
In the future, it will be necessary to investigate the relationship between DCD and EF by grouping children based on various factors, such as age, assessment-based evaluations, gender, attention, ADHD, ASD screenings, the economic status of their parents, and exercise habits. Additionally, to increase the number of children diagnosed with these disorders, cooperation between medical institutions and educational institutions is essential.

5. Conclusions

This cross-sectional study investigated the relationship between motor skills, occupational performance, and mental health in children aged 5–6 years. The results showed that children with co-occurring DCD-t and NDD-t were more likely to have EF and mental health problems than those with DCD-t alone. These findings indicate the importance of testing EF using tools, such as the S-AMPS, and evaluating the comorbidities of other NDDs, such as DAMP syndrome.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Y., H.M., C.I., Y.K. and A.N.; Methodology, Y.K. and M.Y.; Data curation, Y.K. and M.Y.; Writing—Original draft preparation, H.M. and C.I.; Supervision, A.N. and H.M.; Writing—review and editing, A.N. and M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Epidemiology Research Ethics Review Committee of Hiroshima University (no. E-761). The approval date is 28 April 2017.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data are available on Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25460695).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the children and their parents who participated in our study, as well as their preschool teachers, for their cooperation. We would also like to thank Sakura Sashiyama for her help with the evaluations and the seminar students at the Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, for their valuable comments. The development of the Japanese version of the DCDQ and its research utilization in Japan have been approved by Brenda N. Wilson (Alberta Health Services and the University of Calgary, Canada) and was conducted by Akio Nakai. The research utilization in Japan and the development of the Japanese version of the M-ABC2 are based on a contract between Akio Nakai and Pearson Education Limited, with significant support from Sheila E. Henderson, David A. Sugden, and Anna Barnett. We are very grateful for the great support provided by Brenda N. Wilson, Sheila E. Henderson, David A. Sugden, and Anna Barnett.

Conflicts of Interest

We would like to disclose that our corresponding author, Akio Nakai, is serving as a guest editor for this special issue. We acknowledge this potential conflict of interest and assure you that it has been disclosed in accordance with the journal’s policies. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; (DSM-5); American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Van der Linde, B.W.; van Netten, J.J.; Otten, B.; Postema, K.; Geuze, R.H.; Schoemaker, M.M. Activities of Daily Living in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: Performance, Learning, and Participation. Phys. Ther. 2015, 95, 1496–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Skinner, R.A.; Piek, J.P. Psychosocial Implications of Poor Motor Coordination in Children and Adolescents. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2001, 20, 73–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Jansen, D.E.; Veenstra, R.; Ormel, J.; Verhulst, F.C.; Reijneveld, S.A. Early Risk Factors for Being a Bully, Victim, or Bully/Victim in Late Elementary and Early Secondary Education. The Longitudinal TRAILS Study. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Øksendal, E.; Brandlistuen, R.E.; Holte, A.; Wang, M.V. Associations Between Poor Gross and Fine Motor Skills in Preschool and Peer Victimization Concurrently and Longitudinally with Follow-Up in School Age—Results from a Population-Based Study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2022, 92, e12464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lingam, R.; Jongmans, M.J.; Ellis, M.; Hunt, L.P.; Golding, J.; Emond, A. Mental Health Difficulties in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Pediatrics 2012, 129, e882–e891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Piek, J.P.; Hands, B.; Licari, M.K. Assessment of Motor Functioning in the Preschool Period. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2012, 22, 402–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Taylor, S.; Fayed, N.; Mandich, A. CO-OP Intervention for Young Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. OTJR Occup. Particip. Health 2007, 27, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Williams, J.; Omizzolo, C.; Galea, M.P.; Vance, A. Motor imagery skills of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and developmental coordination disorder. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2013, 32, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Moreno-De-Luca, A.; Myers, S.M.; Challman, T.D.; Moreno-De-Luca, D.; Evans, D.W.; Ledbetter, D.H. Developmental brain dysfunction: Revival and expansion of old concepts based on new genetic evidence. Lancet Neurol. 2013, 12, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Blank, R.; Barnett, A.L.; Cairney, J.; Green, D.; Kirby, A.; Polatajko, H.; Rosenblum, S.; Smits-Engelsman, B.; Sugden, D.; Wilson, P.; et al. International Clinical Practice Recommendations on the Definition, Diagnosis, Assessment, Intervention, and Psychosocial Aspects of Developmental Coordination Disorder. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2019, 61, 242–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nakai, A. Motor Coordination Dysfunction in ADHD: New Insights from the Class Room to Genetics. In ADHD: Cognitive Symptoms, Genetics and Treatment Outcomes; Thompson, R., Miller, N.J., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 81–104. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kadesjö, B.; Gillberg, C. The Comorbidity of ADHD in the General Population of Swedish School-Age Children. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2001, 42, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gillberg, C. Deficits in Attention, Motor Control, and Perception: A Brief Review. Arch. Dis. Child. 2003, 88, 904–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. American Psychiatric Association. DSM-IV-TR: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed.; Text Revised; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  16. Van Waelvelde, H.; Oostra, A.; Dewitte, G.; Van den Broeck, C.; Jongmans, M.J. Stability of motor problems in young children with or at risk of autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, and or developmental coordination disorder. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2010, 52, e174–e178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Miyachi, T.; Nakai, A.; Tani, I.; Ohnishi, M.; Nakajima, S.; Tsuchiya, K.J.; Matsumoto, K.; Tsujii, M. Evaluation of Motor Coordination in Boys with High-Functioning Pervasive Developmental Disorder Using the Japanese version of the developmental coordination disorder questionnaire. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 2014, 26, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Dyck, D.; Baijot, S.; Aeby, A.; De Tiège, X.; Deconinck, N. Cognitive, Perceptual, and Motor Profiles of School-aged Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 860766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lachambre, C.; Proteau-Lemieux, M.; Lepage, J.-F.; Bussières, E.-L.; Lippé, S. Attentional and Executive Functions in Children and Adolescents with Developmental Coordination Disorder and the Influence of Comorbid Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0252043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2012, 21, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Pennington, B.F.; Ozonoff, S. Executive Functions and Developmental Psychopathology. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1996, 37, 51–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Piek, J.P.; Dyck, M.J.; Francis, M.; Conwell, A. Working Memory, Processing Speed, and Set-Shifting in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder and Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2007, 49, 678–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stöckel, T.; Hughes, C.M.L. The Relation Between Measures of Cognitive and Motor Functioning in 5- to 6-Year-Old Children. Psychol. Res. 2016, 80, 543–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Villa, M.; Barriopedro Moro, M.I.; Ruiz Pérez, L.M. Motor competence difficulties and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among secondary students. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2020, 20, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bhat, A.N. Motor impairment increases in children with autism spectrum disorder as a function of social communication, cognitive and functional impairment, repetitive behavior severity, and comorbid diagnoses: A SPARK study report. Autism Res. 2021, 14, 202–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wilson, P.; Ruddock, S.; Rahimi-Golkhandan, S.; Piek, J.; Sugden, D.; Green, D.; Steenbergen, B. Cognitive and Motor Function in Developmental Coordination Disorder. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2020, 62, 1317–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fogel, Y.; Stuart, N.; Joyce, T.; Barnett, A.L. Relationships Between Motor Skills and Executive Functions in Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD): A Systematic Review. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2023, 30, 344–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yasunaga, M.; Miyaguchi, H.; Ishizuki, C.; Kita, Y.; Nakai, A. Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance: A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining Intervention Effects on Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder Traits. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Wilson, P.H.; Ruddock, S.; Smits-Engelsman, B.; Polatajko, H.; Blank, R. Understanding Performance Deficits in Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Meta-analysis of Recent Research. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2013, 55, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pratt, M.L.; Leonard, H.C.; Adeyinka, H.; Hill, E.L. The Effect of Motor Load on Planning and Inhibition in Developmental Coordination Disorder. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2014, 35, 1579–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Houwen, S.; van der Veer, G.; Visser, J.; Cantell, M. The Relationship Between Motor Performance and Parent-Rated Executive Functioning in 3- to 5-Year-Old Children: What Is the Role of Confounding Variables? Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017, 53, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Alesi, M.; Pecoraro, D.; Pepi, A. Executive Functions in Kindergarten Children at Risk for Developmental Coordination Disorder. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2019, 34, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Piek, J.P.; Dyck, M.J.; Nieman, A.; Anderson, M.; Hay, D.; Smith, L.M.; McCoy, M.; Hallmayer, J. The Relationship Between Motor Coordination, Executive Functioning and Attention in School Aged Children. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2004, 19, 1063–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Brown, T.; Chien, C.W. Top-down or bottom-up occupational therapy assessment: Which way do we go? Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2010, 73, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meachon, E.J. Perspective: Acknowledging complexity to advance the understanding of developmental coordination disorder. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 1082209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Izadi-Najafabadi, S.; Rinat, S.; Zwicker, J.G. Brain Functional Connectivity in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder Following Rehabilitation Intervention. Pediatr. Res. 2022, 91, 1459–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Puyjarinet, F.; Madramany, P.; Autexier, A.; Madieu, E.; Nesensohn, J.; Biotteau, M. Psychomotor Intervention to Improve Handwriting Skills in Children with ADHD: A Single-Case Experimental Design with Direct Inter-subject and Systematic Replications. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 2023, 33, 1537–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Martini, R.; Savard, J. Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (CO-OP): 1-week group intervention with children referred for motor coordination difficulties. Open J. Occup. Ther. 2021, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Araújo, C.R.S.; Cardoso, A.A.; Magalhães, L.C. Efficacy of the Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance with Brazilian Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2019, 26, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chan, D.Y.K. The Application of Cognitive Orientation to Daily Occupational Performance (CO-OP) in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) in Hong Kong: A Pilot Study. HK J. Occup. Ther. 2007, 17, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kang, D.H.; Yoo, E.Y.; Chung, B.I.; Jung, M.Y.; Chang, K.Y.; Jeon, H.S. The Application of Client-Centred Occupational Therapy for Korean Children with Developmental Disabilities. Occup. Ther. Int. 2008, 15, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kizony, R.; Katz, N. Relationships Between Cognitive Abilities and the Process Scale and Skills of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) in Patients with Stroke. OTJR Occupation Part. Health 2002, 22, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Björkdahl, A.; Åkerlund, E.; Svensson, S.; Esbjörnsson, E. A Randomized Study of Computerized Working Memory Training and Effects on Functioning in Everyday Life for Patients with Brain Injury. Brain Inj. 2013, 27, 1658–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nakai, A.; Miyachi, T.; Okada, R.; Tani, I.; Nakajima, S.; Onishi, M.; Fujita, C.; Tsujii, M. Evaluation of the Japanese Version of the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire as a Screening Tool for Clumsiness of Japanese Children. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 1615–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wilson, B.N.; Kaplan, B.J.; Crawford, S.G.; Campbell, A.; Dewey, D. Reliability and Validity of a Parent Questionnaire on Childhood Motor Skills. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2000, 54, 484–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wilson, B.N.; Crawford, S.G. The Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire. In Administrative Manual for the DCDQ107 with Psychometric Properties; B. N. Wilson: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2007; Volume 2007, Available online: https://dcdq.ca/uploads/pdf/DCDQ07%20Manual%20Feb%2020th%202012.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2024).
  48. Wilson, B.N.; Crawford, S.G.; Green, D.; Roberts, G.; Aylott, A.; Kaplan, B.J. Psychometric properties of the revised Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire. Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2009, 29, 182–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Nakai, A. Prevalence and Developmental Changes of Developmental Disorders in Preschool and Early School-Age Children: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study. In Developmental Pediatrics: Approach from the Perspective of Physical Disabilities; Nakamura, H., Ed.; Research Report on the Comprehensive Research Project on Disability Measures, Health and Labour Sciences Research Grant; Center for Child Development, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, University of Fukui: Fukui, Japan, 2011; pp. 23–28. Available online: https://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/system/files/2011/113081/201122113A/201122113A0002.pdf. (accessed on 9 July 2024). (In Japanese)
  50. Goodman, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1997, 38, 581–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Iida, Y.; Moriwaki, A.; Komatsu, S.; Kamio, Y. Standardization of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire for Japanese Preschool Children (4–5 Years Old) Based on Parental and Homeroom Teacher Ratings: Health, Labor and Welfare Scientific Research Grant Comprehensive Research Project on Measures for Persons with Disabilities, Field of Mental Disorders, Prevalence of Developmental Disorders and Their Developmental Changes in Children Before and After School. Region-Based Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Research (Principal Investigator: Yoko Kamio) Summary/Sharing. Research Report. 2014, pp. 33–41. Available online: https://ddclinic.jp/SDQ/pdf/literature02.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2024).
  52. SDQ. Standard Values in Japan, Child Mental Health and SDQ Tailored to Child Development. 2014. Available online: https://ddclinic.jp/SDQ/standardvalueinjapan.html (accessed on 21 January 2024).
  53. Fisher, A.G. Occupational Therapy Intervention Process Model: A Model for Planning and Implementing Top-Down, Client-Centered, and Occupational-Based Intervention; Three Star Press: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  54. Fisher, A.G.; Bryze, K.; Hume, V.; Gzriswold, L.A. School Version of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills, 2nd ed.; Three Star Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  55. Fisher, A.G.; Bryze, K.; Atchison, B.T. Naturalistic Assessment of Functional Performance in School Settings: Reliability and Validity of the School AMPS Scales. J. Outcome Meas. 2000, 4, 491–512. [Google Scholar]
  56. Munkholm, M.; Löfgren, B.; Fisher, A.G. Reliability of the School AMPS measures. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 2012, 19, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Henderson, S.; Sugden, D.A.; Barnett, A. Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd ed.; Psychological Corporation: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  58. Henderson, S.E.; Suden, D.A. Movement Assessment Battery for Children: Manual; The Psychological Corporation Ltd.: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kita, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Hirata, S.; Sakihara, K.; Inagaki, M.; Nakai, A. Applicability of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition to Japanese Children: A Study of the Age Band 2. Brain Dev. 2016, 38, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hirata, S.; Kita, Y.; Yasunaga, M.; Suzuki, K.; Okumura, Y.; Okuzumi, H.; Hosobuchi, T.; Kokubun, M.; Inagaki, M.; Nakai, A. Applicability of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (M-ABC2) for Japanese Children Aged 3–6 Years: A Preliminary Investigation Emphasizing Internal Consistency and Factorial Validity. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Goodman, R.; Renfrew, D.; Mullick, M. Predicting Type of Psychiatric Disorder from Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Scores in Child Mental Health Clinics in London and Dhaka. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2000, 9, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Roebers, C.M.; Röthlisberger, M.; Neuenschwander, R.; Cimeli, P.; Michel, E.; Jäger, K. The Relation Between Cognitive and Motor Performance and Their Relevance for Children’s Transition to School: A Latent Variable Approach. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2014, 33, 284–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Oberer, N.; Gashaj, V.; Roebers, C.M. Motor Skills in Kindergarten: Internal Structure, Cognitive Correlates and Relationships to Background Variables. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2017, 52, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Riva, D.; Cazzaniga, F.; Esposito, S.; Bulgheroni, S. Executive functions and cerebellar development in children. Appl. Neuropsychol. Child 2013, 2, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Leisman, G.; Moustafa, A.A.; Shafir, T. Thinking, walking, talking: Integratory motor and cognitive brain function. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Donnelly, J.E.; Hillman, C.H.; Castelli, D.; Etnier, J.L.; Lee, S.; Tomporowski, P.; Lambourne, K.; Szabo-Reed, A.N. Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: A systematic review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2016, 48, 1197–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Fuster, J.M. The Prefrontal Cortex, 4th ed.; Academic Press Parkinson’s Disease Foundation Press, 2008; Available online: https://qr.paps.jp/thWl6 (accessed on 21 January 2024).
  68. Joyce, T.; Vanzan, S.; Stuart, N.; Barnett, A. Inhibition skills in children with developmental coordination disorder. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2023, 48, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mikami, M.; Hirota, T.; Adachi, M.; Takahashi, M.; Nishimura, T.; Saito, M.; Nakamura, K.; Yamada, J. Trajectories of Emotional and Behavioral Problems in School-Age Children with Coordination Difficulties and Their Relationships to ASD/ADHD Traits. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2023, 133, 104394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Giagazoglou, P.; Kabitsis, N.; Kokaridas, D.; Zaragas, C.; Katartzi, E.; Kabitsis, C. The Movement Assessment Battery in Greek Preschoolers: The Impact of Age, Gender, Birth Order, and Physical Activity on Motor Outcome. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 2577–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zwicker, J.G.; Lee, E.J. Early Intervention for Children With/At Risk of Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Scoping Review. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2021, 63, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sartori, R.F.; Valentini, N.C.; Fonseca, R.P. Executive Function in Children with and Without Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Comparative Study. Child Care Health Dev. 2020, 46, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mayes, W.P.; Jansari, A.; Leonard, H.C. Exploring Executive Functioning of Adults with Probable Developmental Coordination Disorder Using the Jansari Assessment of Executive Functions. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2023, 48, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Leonard, H.C.; Bernardi, M.; Hill, E.L.; Henry, L.A. Executive Functioning, Motor Difficulties, and Developmental Coordination Disorder. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2015, 40, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Bernardi, M.; Leonard, H.C.; Hill, E.L.; Botting, N.; Henry, L.A. Executive Functions in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 2018, 60, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Izadi-Najafabadi, S.; Gill, K.K.; Zwicker, J.G. Training-Induced Neuroplasticity in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Curr. Dev. Disord. Rep. 2020, 7, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kolodny, T.; Mevorach, C.; Stern, P.; Biderman, N.; Ankaoua, M.; Tsafrir, S.; Shalev, L. Fronto-parietal engagement in response inhibition is inversely scaled with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom severity. NeuroImage Clin. 2020, 25, 102119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Albajara Sáenz, A.; Septier, M.; Van Schuerbeek, P.; Baijot, S.; Deconinck, N.; Defresne, P.; Delvenne, V.; Passeri, G.; Raeymaekers, H.; Salvesen, L.; et al. ADHD and ASD: Distinct Brain Patterns of Inhibition-Related Activation? Transl. Psychiatry 2020, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cao, M.; Shu, N.; Cao, Q.; Wang, Y.; He, Y. Imaging Functional and Structural Brain Connectomics in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Mol. Neurobiol. 2014, 50, 1111–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. McLeod, K.R.; Langevin, L.M.; Goodyear, B.G.; Dewey, D. Functional Connectivity of Neural Motor Networks Is Disrupted in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. NeuroImage Clin. 2014, 4, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Lange, S.M. ADHD and Comorbid Developmental Coordination Disorder: Implications and Recommendations for School Psychologists. Contemp. Sch. Psychol. 2018, 22, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Suskauer, S.J.; Simmonds, D.J.; Fotedar, S.; Blankner, J.G.; Pekar, J.J.; Denckla, M.B.; Mostofsky, S.H. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence for Abnormalities in Response Selection in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Differences in Activation Associated with Response Inhibition but Not Habitual Motor Response. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2008, 20, 478–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hart, H.; Radua, J.; Mataix-Cols, D.; Rubia, K. Meta-analysis of fMRI Studies of Timing in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012, 36, 2248–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Querne, L.; Berquin, P.; Vernier-Hauvette, M.-P.; Fall, S.; Deltour, L.; Meyer, M.-E.; de Marco, G. Dysfunction of the Attentional Brain Network in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A fMRI Study. Brain Res. 2008, 1244, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Bausela-Herreras, E.; Tirapu-Ustárroz, J.; Cordero-Andrés, P. Executive Function Deficits and Neurodevelopmental Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence. Rev. Neurol. 2019, 69, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Andersen, A.C.; Sund, A.M.; Thomsen, P.H.; Lydersen, S.; Haugan, A.L.J.; Nøvik, T.S. Executive function measured by BRIEF in adolescents diagnosed and treated for ADHD: Problem profiles and agreement between informants. Child Neuropsychol. 2024, 30, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Samuels, W.E.; Tournaki, N.; Blackman, S.; Zilinski, C. Executive Functioning Predicts Academic Achievement in Middle School: A Four-Year Longitudinal Study. J. Educ. Res. 2016, 109, 478–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Miranda, A.; Colomer, C.; Mercader, J.; Fernández, M.I.; Presentación, M.J. Performance-Based Tests Versus Behavioral Ratings in the Assessment of Executive Functioning in Preschoolers: Associations with ADHD Symptoms and Reading Achievement. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Kenny, L.; Cribb, S.J.; Pellicano, E. Childhood Executive Function Predicts Later Autistic Features and Adaptive Behavior in Young Autistic People: A 12-Year Prospective Study. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2019, 47, 1089–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Happé, F.; Booth, R.; Charlton, R.; Hughes, C. Executive Function Deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorders and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Examining Profiles Across Domains and Ages. Brain Cogn. 2006, 61, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pievsky, M.A.; McGrath, R.E. The Neurocognitive Profile of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Review of Meta-analyses. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2018, 33, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Craig, F.; Margari, F.; Legrottaglie, A.R.; Palumbi, R.; De Giambattista, C.; Margari, L. A Review of Executive Function Deficits in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2016, 12, 1191–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lai, C.L.E.; Lau, Z.; Lui, S.S.Y.; Lok, E.; Tam, V.; Chan, Q.; Cheng, K.M.; Lam, S.M.; Cheung, E.F.C. Meta-analysis of Neuropsychological Measures of Executive Functioning in Children and Adolescents with High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism Res. 2017, 10, 911–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Geurts, H.M.; Corbett, B.; Solomon, M. The Paradox of Cognitive Flexibility in Autism. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2009, 13, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Yeung, M.K.; Han YM, Y.; Sze, S.L.; Chan, A.S. Abnormal Frontal Theta Oscillations Underlie the Cognitive Flexibility Deficits in Children with High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders. Neuropsychology 2016, 30, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Shirama, A.; Stickley, A.; Kamio, Y.; Nakai, A.; Takahashi, H.; Saito, A.; Haraguchi, H.; Kumazaki, H.; Sumiyoshi, T. Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Japanese Preschool Children with Motor Coordination Difficulties: The Role of Autistic Traits. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2021, 31, 979–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Green, D.; Lingam, R.; Mattocks, C.; Riddoch, C.; Ness, A.; Emond, A. The Risk of Reduced Physical Activity in Children with Probable Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Prospective Longitudinal Study. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 1332–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Zeng, N.; Ayyub, M.; Sun, H.; Wen, X.; Xiang, P.; Gao, Z. Effects of Physical Activity on Motor Skills and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: A Systematic Review. BioMed. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 2760716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Cairney, J.; Veldhuizen, S.; Szatmari, P. Motor Coordination and Emotional-Behavioral Problems in Children. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2010, 23, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mancini, V.; Rigoli, D.; Roberts, L.; Piek, J. Motor Skills and Internalizing Problems Throughout Development: An Integrative Research Review and Update of the Environmental Stress Hypothesis Research. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2019, 84, 96–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Schmitt, S.A.; Purpura, D.J.; Elicker, J.G. Predictive Links Among Vocabulary, Mathematical Language, and Executive Functioning in Preschoolers. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2019, 180, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ferrier, D.E.; Bassett, H.H.; Denham, S.A. Relations Between Executive Function and Emotionality in Preschoolers: Exploring a Transitive Cognition–Emotion Linkage. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Moffitt, T.E.; Arseneault, L.; Belsky, D.; Dickson, N.; Hancox, R.J.; Harrington, H.; Houts, R.; Poulton, R.; Roberts, B.W.; Ross, S.; et al. A Gradient of Childhood Self-Control Predicts Health, Wealth, and Public Safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 2693–2698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Cooper, M.; Martin, J.; Langley, K.; Hamshere, M.; Thapar, A. Autistic Traits in Children with ADHD Index Clinical and Cognitive Problems. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2014, 23, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Gu, T.; Jin, C.; Lin, L.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Jing, J.; Cao, M. The relationship between executive function and the association of motor coordination difficulties and social communication deficits in autistic children. Front. Psychiatry 2024, 15, 1363406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Greene, J.A.; Trujillo, S.; Isquith, P.K.; Gioia, G.A.; Espy, K.A. Enhanced Interpretation of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Preschool Version (BRIEF-P). Available online: https://www.parinc.com/Portals/0/Webuploads/samplerpts/PAR%20WHITE%20PAPER-BRIEF-P.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2024).
  107. Van Der Veer, G.; Kamphorst, E.; Cantell, M.; Minnaert, A.; Houwen, S. Task-Specific and Latent Relationships Between Motor Skills and Executive Functions in Preschool Children. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Children 11 00899 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of survey data collection. DCDQ, Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire.
Figure 1. Flow chart of survey data collection. DCDQ, Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire.
Children 11 00899 g001
Table 1. Baseline comparison of the DCD-t, NDD-t + DCD-t, NDD-t-only, and TD groups.
Table 1. Baseline comparison of the DCD-t, NDD-t + DCD-t, NDD-t-only, and TD groups.
Outcome MeasureDCD-tNDD-t + DCD-tNDD-t + Not DCD-tTD
(n = 5)(n = 12)(n = 35)(n = 43)
Mean Mean (SD)Mean Mean p-Value
(SD)(SD)(SD)
Sex4 boys, 1 girl5 boys, 7 girls16 boys, 19 girls17 boys, 26 girls0.259 †
Age75.40 (1.82)74.75 (3.75)74.91 (3.59)76.81 (3.58)0.070 ‡
D-Total37.20 (1.64)33.00 (8.29)53.97 (9.58)56.60 (9.33)0.000 ‡
D-CDM14.10 (1.52)11.42 (3.87)20.00 (6.12)20.47 (5.58)0.000 ‡
D-FM9.60 (1.34)10.5 (4.38)16.14 (2.90)17.51 (2.30)0.000 ‡
D-GC13.20 (2.17)11.08 (2.81)17.94 (3.83)18.81 (4.01)0.000 ‡
SDQ-TDS4.0 (3.08)11.91 (6.58)9.86 (4.89)2.31 (2.62)0.000 ‡
SDQ-CP0.6 (0.89)1.83 (1.19)1.09 (1.38)0.37 (0.82)0.000 ‡
SDQ-HI 2.0 (1.87)4.3 (2.67)4.0 (2.31)1.51 (1.72)0.000 ‡
SDQ-ES 2.09 (0.45)1.58 (2.11)1.29 (1.84)0.05 (0.21)0.000 ‡
SDQ-PP 1.2 (0.83)4.17 (2.12)2.71 (1.86)0.44 (0.70)0.000 ‡
SDQ-PB6.2 (2.17)5.58 (2.50)5.77 (2.29)8.28 (1.93)0.000 ‡
S-Motor2.06 (0.70)2.38 (0.67)2.73 (0.39)2.76 (0.42)0.033 ‡
S-Process0.48 (0.64)0.67 (0.63)0.97 (0.45)1.01 (0.44)0.176 §
M-Total76.80 (7.26)64.5 (14.83)87.57 (7.94)88.16 (7.90)0.000 §
M-MD31.00 (1.87)23.92 (7.53)35.77 (6.65)35.49 (6.16)0.000 ‡
M-AC15.00 (3.08)13.17 (3.59)18.43 (5.38)19.21 (4.24)0.001 ‡
M-Bal30.40 (3.21)27.5 (7.07)33.94 (2.95)33.47 (3.70)0.000 ‡
D, Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire; S, School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; M, Movement Assessment Battery; CDM, control during movement; FM, fine motor/handwriting; GC, general coordination; SDQ, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; TDS, Total Difficulties Score; CP, conduct problems; HI, hyperactivity /inattention; ES, emotion symptoms; PP, peer problem; PB, prosocial behavior; MD, manual dexterity; AC, aiming and catching; Bal, balance; †, chi-square test for goodness of fit; ‡, Kruskal–Wallis test. §, one-way analysis of variance.
Table 2. Relationship between the DCDQ and SDQ and S-AMPS and M-ABC2 in children (n = 95).
Table 2. Relationship between the DCDQ and SDQ and S-AMPS and M-ABC2 in children (n = 95).
12345678910111213141516
1. D-Total―
2. D-CDM0.87 **―
3. D-FM0.79 **0.48 **―
4. D-GC0.87 **0.58 **0.73 **―
5. SDQ-TDS−0.29 **−0.14−0.44 **−0.36 **―
6. SDQ-CP−0.35 **−0.16−0.48 **−0.41 **0.70 **―
7. SDQ-HI−0.21 *−0.10−0.32 **−0.30 **0.88 **0.51 **―
8. SDQ-ES−0.09−0.02−0.19−0.100.53 **0.23 *0.26 *―
9. SDQ-PP−0.39 **−0.26 *−0.49 **−0.37 **0.90 **0.62 **0.67 **0.48 **―
10. SDQ-PB0.35 **0.230.41 **0.35 **−0.61 **−0.56 **−0.46 **−0.38 **−0.62 **―
11. S-Motor0.23 *0.040.40 **0.21 *−0.28 **−0.26 **−0.28 **−0.19−0.22 *0.34 **―
12. S-Process0.23 *0.130.38 **0.15−0.43 **−0.28 **−0.50 **−0.14−0.39 **0.32 **0.63 **―
13. M-Total0.54 **0.59 **0.31 **0.42 **−0.16−0.13−0.14−0.16−0.200.07−0.030.02―
14. M-MD0.57 **0.59 **0.33 **0.45 **−0.10−0.12−0.03−0.18−0.160.10−0.01−0.020.75 **―
15. M-AC0.36 **0.42 **0.21 *0.25 *−0.17−0.16−0.16−0.17−0.21 *0.100.020.050.78 **0.33 **―
16. M-Bal0.37 **0.39 **0.270.29 **−0.13−0.03−0.22 *0.03−0.140.000.090.160.67 **0.31 **0.47 **―
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. D, Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire; S, School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; M, Movement Assessment Battery; CDM, control during movement; FM, fine motor/handwriting; GC, general coordination; SDQ, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; TDS, Total Difficulties Score; CP, conduct problems; HI, hyperactivity /inattention; ES, emotion symptoms; PP, peer problem; PB, prosocial behavior; MD, manual dexterity; AC, aiming and catching; Bal, balance. Colors in the table represent the strength of the correlation, with darker colors indicating stronger correlations. Orange indicates positive correlations, and green indicates negative correlations.
Table 3. Relationship between the DCDQ, SDQ, S-AMPS, and M-ABC2 in children in the DCD-t + NDD-t group (n = 12).
Table 3. Relationship between the DCDQ, SDQ, S-AMPS, and M-ABC2 in children in the DCD-t + NDD-t group (n = 12).
12345678910111213141516
1. D-Total―
2. D-CDM0.50―
3. D-FM0.72 **0.08―
4. D-GC0.70 *0.270.36―
5. SDQ-TDS−0.94 **−0.45−0.72 **−0.53―
6. SDQ-CP−0.79 **−0.31−0.46−0.75 **0.75 **―
7. SDQ-HI−0.94 **−0.55−0.55−0.62 *0.92 **0.84 **―
8. SDQ-ES−0.31−0.33−0.45−0.010.43−0.010.27―
9. SDQ-PP−0.75 **−0.37−0.72 **−0.320.89 **0.510.71 **0.61 *―
10. SDQ-PB0.72 **0.190.73 **0.54−0.84 **−0.62 *−0.66 *−0.61 *−0.84 **―
11. S-Motor0.55−0.140.88 **0.37−0.53−0.29−0.38−0.49−0.65 *0.64 *―
12. S-Process0.69 *0.040.70 **0.45−0.66 *−0.49−0.57−0.04−0.62 *0.550.63 *―
13. M-Total0.78 **0.170.80 **0.46−0.82 **−0.49−0.68 *−0.67 *−0.84 **0.84 **0.83 **0.62 *―
14. M-MD0.72 **0.090.75 **0.33−0.79 **−0.51−0.63 *−0.42−0.87 **0.69 *0.77 **0.64 *0.83 **―
15. M-AC0.220.520.23−0.10−0.300.02−0.31−0.77 **−0.440.310.26−0.050.470.18―
16. M-Bal0.74 **0.200.73 **0.82 **−0.59 *−0.61 *−0.59 *−0.21−0.430.66 *0.66 *0.60 *0.61 *0.400.06―
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. D, Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire; S, School Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; M, Movement Assessment Battery; CDM, control during movement; FM, fine motor/handwriting; GC, general coordination; SDQ, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; TDS, Total Difficulties Score; CP, conduct problems; HI, hyperactivity /inattention; ES, emotion symptoms; PP, peer problem; PB, prosocial behavior; MD, manual dexterity; AC, aiming and catching; Bal, balance. Colors in the table represent the strength of the correlation, with darker colors indicating stronger correlations. Orange indicates positive correlations, and green indicates negative correlations.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yasunaga, M.; Miyaguchi, H.; Ishizuki, C.; Kita, Y.; Nakai, A. Association between Motor Skills, Occupational Performance, and Mental Health in Japanese Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Correlational Study. Children 2024, 11, 899. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11080899

AMA Style

Yasunaga M, Miyaguchi H, Ishizuki C, Kita Y, Nakai A. Association between Motor Skills, Occupational Performance, and Mental Health in Japanese Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Correlational Study. Children. 2024; 11(8):899. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11080899

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yasunaga, Masanori, Hideki Miyaguchi, Chinami Ishizuki, Yosuke Kita, and Akio Nakai. 2024. "Association between Motor Skills, Occupational Performance, and Mental Health in Japanese Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Correlational Study" Children 11, no. 8: 899. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11080899

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop