Assessment & Research

Psychometric properties of the DCD-Q-07 in children ages to 4-6.

Parmar et al. (2014) · Research in developmental disabilities 2014
★ The Verdict

The DCD-Q-07 misses too many preschoolers with motor delays—use a direct test instead.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who screen preschoolers with developmental delay in clinic or school settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners working only with school-age kids or those who already use M-ABC-2.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Parmar et al. (2014) checked if a short parent form, the DCD-Q-07, can spot motor delays in preschoolers.

They compared the form to a hands-on test, the M-ABC-2, in kids with developmental delay.

The goal was to see if the questionnaire catches the same children the direct test flags.

02

What they found

The DCD-Q-07 missed most children who showed motor problems on the M-ABC-2.

Agreement between the two tools was low, so the questionnaire is not a good screen at this age.

03

How this fits with other research

Amore et al. (2011) found the M-ABC-2 itself is reliable in 3-year-olds, so the fault lies with the questionnaire, not the gold-standard test.

Wuang et al. (2009) showed the BOT-2 works well in young kids with ID, giving clinicians other solid motor options.

Ellingsen et al. (2014) shows a 3-item parent screen can work for behavior problems, proving short parent tools are not doomed—just the DCD-Q-07.

Together the papers say: pick parent questionnaires that have proven sensitivity; this one has not.

04

Why it matters

If you screen preschoolers for motor delays, skip the DCD-Q-07. Use a direct test like M-ABC-2 or BOT-2, or choose a different parent form with better data. This saves you from false negatives and keeps kids in early intervention who need it.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Swap out the DCD-Q-07 and schedule a short M-ABC-2 session for any 4- to 6-year-old you suspect has motor issues.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
181
Population
developmental delay
Finding
negative

03Original abstract

It is important to identify Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) early in a child's life to allow for proper and timely intervention and support, and to reduce the negative secondary consequences associated with this condition. In this study we assessed the psychometric properties (construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability and test accuracy) of the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCD-Q-07) in preschool children. A community-based sample of children ages 4-6 (n=181) were screened for motor difficulties using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC-2). Use of the M-ABC-2 resulted in the identification of 29 children below the 15th percentile, which we classified as probable DCD. Parents of these children concurrently completed the DCD-Q-07 to report their child's motor performance. The DCD-Q-07 demonstrated high internal consistency for both the full scale (alpha=0.881) and each subscale: control during movement (alpha=0.813), fine motor and handwriting (alpha=0.869) and general coordination (alpha=0.728). Moderate correlations (r=0.47-0.63) were also seen between the subscales on the DCD-Q-07, the strongest correlation being between control during movement and general coordination (r=0.63). Based on published age and sex cut points, the DCD-Q-07 showed poor sensitivity (20.7%) but high specificity (92.1%) against the M-ABC-2. Overall agreement with the M-ABC-2 was low using ROC analysis (area under the curve=0.654). Although it is important to screen for DCD in young children, the DCD-Q-07 may not be the best choice as a screening tool for DCD in preschool children ages 4-6 due to its low test accuracy.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2014 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.10.030