The effect of an integrated perceived competence and motor intervention in children with developmental coordination disorder.
Extra confidence talks added to motor drills do not help school-age kids with DCD move or feel better.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran two groups of kids with developmental coordination disorder.
One group got regular motor training. The other got the same drills plus extra talks about feeling good at movement.
They checked motor skills, self-confidence, and daily activity before and after.
What they found
Both groups improved the same amount.
Adding the pep-talk part did not give an extra boost.
Neither group started moving more outside of class.
How this fits with other research
Sánchez-Matas et al. (2024) looks like a win: preschoolers gained both skill and confidence after a similar motor-plus-confidence program. The difference is age. Four-year-olds may soak up praise more than older kids.
Hui-Ang et al. (2019) also beat the target results. Eight lively FMS lessons tucked into PE raised both skill and free-time play. Their secret was built-in activity homework, not extra self-esteem talks.
Giagazoglou et al. (2015) used balance circuits with a trampoline and saw clear gains. Plain motor work, no psychology, still worked.
So the target paper’s null finding does not kill the idea. It just shows that tacking on “you’re great” chats to plain drills is not enough; you need younger kids, more practice time, or real-world activity cues.
Why it matters
Skip the extra confidence lessons for school-age kids with DCD. Spend the minutes on actual movement instead. Add homework that makes kids play outside, like Hui-Ping did, or use fun gear like trampolines. Save the pep-talks for preschoolers, where they seem to help.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Drop the weekly “confidence circle” and add ten minutes of jump, balance, or ball-play homework instead.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Children with DCD have lower self-perceptions and are less physically active than typically developing children. The aim of this quasi-experimental study was to investigate whether an integrated perceived competence and motor intervention affects DCD children's motor performance, self-perceptions, and physical activity compared with a motor intervention only. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The intervention group consisted of 20 children and the care-as-usual group consisted of 11 children, all aged 7-10 years. The perceived competence component of the intervention focused primarily on providing positive, specific, and progress feedback to enhance self-perceptions. We assessed children at baseline, after 12 treatment sessions (trial end-point), and at 3-month follow-up. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Mixed linear models revealed no differences between the intervention and the care-as-usual group on any of the outcome measures. Children improved their motor performance and increased their perceived athletic competence, global self-esteem, and perceived motor competence after 12 treatment sessions. This improvement was maintained at 3-month follow-up. Motor task values and physical activity remained unchanged for all children. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: A perceived competence and motor intervention is as effective as care-as-usual in children with DCD. Future research should focus on improving physical activity in children with DCD. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: This is the first study that has investigated the effect of an integrated perceived competence and motor intervention (intervention group) on motor performance, self-perceptions, and physical activity compared with a motor intervention (care-as-usual group) in children with DCD. We made the perceived competence component explicit by providing positive, specific, and progress feedback to enhance children's self-perceptions. Also, this is one of the first studies that has investigated the effect after both 12 treatment sessions (trial end-point) and after 3 months of no intervention (3-month follow-up). We found no differences between the intervention and the care-as-usual group, but children improved their motor performance and increased (most) of their self-perceptions after 12 treatment sessions, while physical activity remained the same. The improvement was still present at the 3-month follow-up. We also benchmarked our results about self-perceptions and physical activity to a group of typically developing children. Self-perceptions in children with DCD had improved to the level of typically developing children after 12 treatment sessions, but their physical activity levels remained significantly lower. This result was the same at the 3-month follow-up, except for perceived athletic competence, which was lower in children with DCD at the 3-month follow-up. In accordance with previous intervention studies that have investigated children with DCD, we found large intra-group variability in the change in motor performance and self-perceptions in children with DCD. We argue that we need to better understand why some children with DCD improve and others do not after a motor intervention.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2017 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.12.002