Self-Concept of Boys with Developmental Coordination Disorder

17 Pages·2009·0.27 MB·English

Self-Concept of Boys with Developmental
Coordination Disorder
Neralie Cocks,MAppSc(OT)
4 BelindaBarton,BA(Hons.Psych),PhD
1
02/ MichelleDonelly,MA(Educ),PhD
2/
1
n
o
al
e
ntr
o
M
of ABSTRACT. Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder
y
sit (DCD) experience difficulties in motor coordination. During the last
ver decadetherehasbeenincreasinginterestinthepsychosocialaspectsof
ni
U children with motor coordination difficulties. To date, the majority of
y
m b studieshavefocusedontheperceivedcompetenceandglobalself-worth
are.coonly. odfemchicildanrednnwonitahcaDdCemDi.cTdhoimsasitnusdyofe3x0amboinyesd(athgeedse7lft-oco1n2cyeepatrisn) wacitah-
m informahealthcFor personal use DsnrpeeolClalrafymD-tscea.odatnRnitvcoeieenspsumteetltglefsfora-acnrilnopvrdnhoaiccylleeuaspetiiectnsda.ftloShtarheebvaphiethloirybtliiitsoesyiystciosacaflnwmmdaiabtopnhitleaoieDtgrireeCdmsreiDfaelfiannhctdtiuaoodlrntfeissecaiswhdgiiwnhlndiegafirn.secnScasoinewgmltnfliy-tpichfiaopcDrnoeacCodnertDtlpeoyrt.
o
d fr
e
d
a
o KEYWORDS.Developmentalcoordinationdisorder,self-concept,mo-
nl
w tordifficulties,children
o
D
atr
di
e Neralie Cocks, MAppSc (OT) is Senior Occupational Therapist, Child Develop-
P
er mentUnit,TheChildren’sHospitalatWestmead,Australia.BelindaBarton,BA(Hons.
h
T Psych.), PhD, Head, Children’s Hospital Education Research Institute (CHERI),
p
u The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Australia. Michelle Donelly, BAppSC(OT),
c
Oc MA(Educ),PhDisLecturer,SchoolofOccupationandLeisureSciences,University
ys ofSydney,Lidcombe,Australia
h
P Address correspondence to: Neralie Cocks, Child Development Unit, The Chil-
dren’s Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead NSW 2145, Australia
(E-mail:[email protected]).
Physical&OccupationalTherapyinPediatrics,Vol.29(1),2009
Availableonlineathttp://potp.haworthpress.com
(cid:1)C 2009byInformaHealthcareUSA,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
6 doi:10.1080/01942630802574932
Cocksetal. 7
ChildrenwithDevelopmentalCoordinationDisorder(DCD)experience
significant difficulties in motor coordination, which frequently interferes
with their academic achievement or the ability to successfully participate
indailyactivities(Diagnostic andStatisticalManualofMentalDisorders
[DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). At home,
children with DCD may lack the ability to be independent in self-care
4 tasks such as dressing and managing cutlery (Dunford, Missiuna, Street,
1
2/ &Sibert,2005).Inphysicalactivities,childrenwithDCDmaylookawk-
0
12/ ward when walking and running, and are less proficient than their peers
n
o in ball skills, agility, and balance-based activities (Henderson & Sugden,
al
ntre 1992).Intheclassroom,childrenwithDCDexperienceparticulardifficul-
o tieswithpencilcontrol,handwritingacquisition,organization,andlegibil-
M
of ity of written work (Dunford et al., 2005). This collection of difficulties
sity has raised concern among educators, psychologists, and therapists about
er the secondary negative effects of DCD on the emotional and psychologi-
v
Uni cal well-being of children with the condition (Heath, Toste, & Missiuna,
by 2005).
m
o During the last decade, there has been increasing interest in the psy-
are.conly. chosocial aspects of children with motor difficulties, which has included
mahealthcsonal use iwunsoveredtshti,ingataentrdicohsnaesnlefg-xceaoambnlicyneipnatgnhdtahviene“csboeenlesfn.i”stuVesanertdiloytuo(sBdteuertsmlcersribs&uectGhheaassssseoelnflf,a-e2ns0dt0eae5rm)e.,oSsfeetlelffn--
m inforFor per cHounbcneeprt,r&efeSrstatnotoann,i1n9d7iv6i)d.uTalh’sespeerpceerpcteipotnioonfshaimre-foorrmheerdsetlhfr(oSuhgahveolsnoen’s,
o
d fr experiencesandinterpretationoftheenvironment,whichisinfluencedby
de reinforcements, the feedback of significant others, and one’s own attri-
a
o
nl bution for behavior (Shavelson et al., 1976). Self-concept is defined as
w
o including both evaluative and descriptive aspects of the self (Shavelson
D
atr et al., 1976). Self-concept plays a key role in the integration of personal-
di ity, in motivating behavior and in achieving mental health (Burns, 1979;
e
P
er Shavelsonetal.,1976).
h
T To date, no studies have investigated the self-concept of children with
p
cu motor difficulties. The majority of studies have examined the global self-
c
O worth and perceived competence of children with motor difficulties. Per-
s
y
h ceived competence is proposed to be predictive of global self-worth, the
P
overallevaluationof one’sworth orvalue asa person(Harter, 1985).Ev-
idencetodateindicatesthatchildrenwithmotorcoordinationdifficulties,
includingthosewithDCD,perceivethemselvestobelesscompetentath-
letically and scholastically, and also have poorer perceptions about their
physicalappearancewhencomparedto childrenwithout motor coordina-
tiondifficulties(Mæland,1992;Piek,Dworcan,Barrett,&Coleman,2000;
8 PHYSICAL&OCCUPATIONALTHERAPYINPEDIATRICS
Rose, Larkin, & Berger, 1997; Schoemaker & Kalverboer, 1994; Skinner
&Piek,2001;Watson&Knott,2006).
Findings regarding the perceived social acceptance of children with
motordifficultieshavebeenequivocal.Somestudiesindicatethatchildren
with motor difficulties perceive themselves to be less socially accepted
when compared to children without motor difficulties (Rose et al., 1997;
4 Schoemaker&Kalverboer,1994),whereasothershavereportednosignifi-
1
2/ cantdifferences(Mæland,1992;Pieketal.,2000;Piek,Baynam,&Barrett,
0
12/ 2006;Skinner&Piek,2001).Similarly,notallstudieshavefoundsignifi-
n
o cantlylowerself-worthinchildrenwithmotordifficultieswhencompared
al
ntre tochildrenwithoutmotordifficulties(Mæland,1992;Pieketal.,2000).
o It is plausible that the self-concept of children with motor difficulties,
M
of particularly forphysicaldomains,isrelatedtotheseverityofmotordiffi-
sity culties.Ofthefewpublishedstudiesthathavereportedontherelationship
er betweenmotordifficultiesandself-perceptions,nosignificantassociation
v
Uni wasfoundbetweendegreeofdifficulty,physicalcompetence,socialaccep-
by tance, or general self-worth (Mæland, 1992; Schoemaker & Kalverboer,
m
o 1994). However, the lack of significant association found in these studies
are.conly. maybepartlyduetothesmallsamplesizeandconsequentlypoorstatisti-
mahealthcsonal use claanarldgpegorrwcooeshsrotmortodotefotrcehcaitbladilrireteynlawwtiioetnrhesahsniipdg.nwRifiietchsauonlutttsDpfrrCeodmDiciatnodrreisccaeotnfetdpsettuhrcdaetyiavigenedv,oagltvehnilndegteirca,
m inforFor per cmoomtopreatebnilciety(,Painedkaedtiaalg.,n2o0s0is6o).fFDoCrDpewrceerievefodusncdhtoolabsetisciganbiifilictya,natgper,edfiince-
o
d fr tors(Pieketal.,2006).
de Other conditions that frequently occur in children with DCD may also
a
o
nl contribute to the development of a negative self-concept. Many children
w
o with DCD have poor academic performance, learning problems, and At-
D
atr tention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ([ADHD]; APA, 1994), (Dewey,
di Kaplan, Crawford, & Wilson, 2002; Rasmussen & Gillberg, 2000). Sev-
e
P
er eralstudieshavefoundthatchildrenwithlearningproblemsorADHDhave
h
T significantlypoorerself-conceptinacademic,social,and/orbehavioraldo-
p
cu mainswhencomparedtocontrolgroups(Bear,Minke,&Manning,2002;
c
O Dumas & Pelletier, 1999). It is possible that other conditions that occur
s
y
h withDCDcontributetopoorerself-conceptinthesechildrencomparedto
P
childrenwithonlyDCD.
In summary, children with DCD perceive themselves to be less com-
petent athletically and scholastically, and have poorer perceptions about
theirphysicalappearancethanchildrenwithoutmotordifficulties.Findings
regarding other domains of self-perception such as social acceptance, as
wellastherelationshipbetweenmotordifficultiesandself-perceptionsare
Cocksetal. 9
less clear. To our knowledge, no studies have examined the self-concept
of children with DCD. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to
examine: (1) the self-concept of boys with DCD; (2) the relationship be-
tweenmotordifficultiesandself-concept,and(3)therelationshipbetween
self-concept domains. Boys were the focus of this study because of the
higherprevalenceofDCDinboysthangirls(Kadesjo¨ &Gillberg,1999).
4
1
2/
0
2/
1
n
o METHODS
al
e
ntr
o Participants
M
of
sity Thestudywasapprovedbythefollowingethicscommittees:TheChil-
er dren’s Hospital at Westmead, The University of Sydney, The Department
v
Uni ofTrainingandCatholicEducation.Parentsandboyswereprovidedwith
by an information sheet about the study and written informed consent was
m
o obtained from both. Parental consent was obtained to contact the child’s
are.conly. school.
mahealthcsonal use rpeafrOetrmvreeedrntab,nyT1ht8eh-eCmirhoihnldothrseppnite’asrliHopdoe,sdp4iia1ttarbliocaiytasWnaetgosetdmthbeeaedOtw,cSeceyundpna7etiyao,nnAdalu1sT2trhyaeelriaaarp,syfowrDeaerne-
m inforFor per aloswseisnsgmpeanrteonftatlhceoirnmceortnosrecxoporredsisneadtitoonp.eTdhieatarsicseiasnsmsoefntthweabsoryesq’umesotteodrfcool--
o
d fr ordinationathomeand/oratschool.Anoccupationaltherapist(firstauthor)
de assessedallboystodeterminewhethertheysatisfiedtheDSM-IVcriteria
a
o
nl (APA, 1994) for DCD. The DSM-IV criteria defines children with DCD
w
o ashavingmotorcoordinationsubstantiallybelowthatexpected,giventhe
D
atr person’s age and intelligence, which affects their academic achievement
di and/oractivitiesofdailyliving.
e
P
er Boys who scored below the 15th percentile on the Movement Assess-
h
T ment Battery for Children (M-ABC) (Henderson & Sugden, 1992) were
p
cu consideredeligibletoparticipateinthestudy.M-ABCscoresbetweenthe
c
O 6th and 15th percentile suggests a degree of difficulty that is borderline,
s
y
h whilescoresbelowthe5thpercentileareindicativeofadefinitemotorprob-
P
lem (Henderson & Sugden, 1992). Children with scores below the 15th
percentilewereincluded,sincethosewithborderlinemotordifficultiesare
atriskofsocialandemotionaldifficultiesespeciallywhenpresentingwith
ahistoryoffunctionaldifficulties(Deweyetal.,2002;Dunfordetal.,2005;
Pieketal.,2000).Inaddition,therehasbeensomevariationinthecut-off
pointusedtodefinemotorcoordinationsubstantiallybelowthatexpected,
10 PHYSICAL&OCCUPATIONALTHERAPYINPEDIATRICS
whichrangesfromthe3rdtothe15thpercentileontheM-ABC(Dunford,
Street,O’Connell,Kelly,&Sibert,2004).
Parents and teachers completed questionnaires developed by the first
author to provide information about any motor difficulties children were
experiencing in the following domains: handwriting, fine motor skills,
gross motor skills, academic performance (teacher only), and self-care
4 (parent only). Items for each domain reflected commonly reported dif-
1
2/ ficulties experienced by children with motor difficulties such as cutting
0
12/ skills,speedofhandwriting,letterformation,tyingshoelaces,andmanag-
n
o ing cutlery. The Parent Questionnaire consisted of 29 items and required
al
ntre parents to rate their satisfaction in their child’s performance for each do-
o main using a five-point Likert scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied).
M
of The Teacher Questionnaire consisted of 24 items, with teachers rating
sity the performance of the child in each domain compared to other children
er in the same classroom using a five-point Likert scale (lowest 10%, next
v
Uni lowest 20%, middle 40%, next highest 20%, highest 10%). If the teacher
by rated the boy’s academic performance in the lowest 10% of the class in
m
o twoormoreacademicsubjects(reading,spelling,writtenexpression,and
are.conly. mathematics),theboywasconsideredtohavepooracademiccompetence
mahealthcsonal use wathcheaedbneomcyosicmwapecarherieeidnvetcomlahesinssetcsolorarsinssrtpoeelolcmiigaelpnsecceehrosw.oaNlssofaodfromrsmitnuaidsletsentrtaesndwd;aihtrhodwiazneevdienrtt,eesnlltoeinncgetuooaffl
m inforFor per dpiasraebnitlsitayn.dPrteioarchtoertsh,iasnsdtusduyb,stehqeueqnutelsytiwononrdaiinregswwaesrreefitrniaelde.dHwoiwthevseerv,etrhael
o
d fr questionnaires were not validated. Ratings from these questionnaires, as
de well as clinical information obtained from the parent at the time of the
a
o
nl assessment and performance on the M-ABC was used to diagnose DCD
w
o (incollaborationwiththeboy’spediatrician)andtodescribetheacademic
D
atr competenceoftheboys.
di Referralinformationfromtheboy’spediatricianconfirmedtheabsence
e
P
er ofneurologicalconditions.Boyswithalanguagedisorder,pervasivedevel-
h
T opmentaldisorder,orwhohadcontactwithoccupationaltherapyservices
p
cu inthelast12monthsorattendedaspecialschool,wereexcluded.Allboys
c
O hadEnglishastheirfirstlanguage.
s
y
h Of the 41 boys referred, 7 boys scored above the 15th percentile on
P
the M-ABC and were not eligible to participate. Therefore, 34 boys were
eligibletoparticipate.However,twoboysdeclinedtoparticipatealthough
parental consenthadbeengivenandtwo boyshadinconsistentresponses
toitemsontheself-conceptquestionnaireandwereexcludedfromfurther
data analysis. Therefore, data was available for 30 boys, 14 (47%) of
whom had an existing diagnosis of ADHD as diagnosed by the referring
Cocksetal. 11
pediatrician,with7(23%)currentlytakingstimulantmedication.Themean
ageofboys’was9.5years(SD=1.4).
Assessment of SES was based on parental occupation (Daniel, 1983).
When both parents were working, the more prestigious occupation was
used. SES was classified as high, middle, or low (Daniel, 1983). Fifty-
three percent (16/30) of boys were from low SES, 27% (8/30) boys were
4 from middle SES, and 20% (6/30) were from high SES families. Eight
1
2/ (27%)boyswerefromfamilieswheretheparent(s)wasunemployed.
0
12/ Responses from the parent questionnaire indicated that most parents
n
o (86%) were dissatisfied with the handwriting performance of their child.
al
ntre Also, almost half the parents were dissatisfied with the fine (47%) and
o gross(40%)motorskillsoftheirchild.Informationfromtheteacherques-
M
of tionnaire was available for 22 boys, 6 (27%) of whom were identified
sity as having poor academic competence. Approximately 60% of boys were
er rated by teachers as being in the lowest 10% for fine motor skills and/or
v
Uni handwriting. All boys had motor coordination difficulties that interfered
by withtheiracademicachievementand/ordailyactivities.
m
o
are.conly.
mahealthcsonal use MeMasouvreemsent Assessment Battery for Children (M-ABC; Henderson &
m inforFor per cShuiglddewna,s19re9q2u).irTedhetoMp-eArfBoCrmweaigshutsteadsktosmmeeaassuurreinmgomtoanrucaolmdpeextteenrictey.,Tbahlel
o
d fr skills, and balance. A Total Impairment Score is calculated by summing
de the scoresfor all tasks; a higherimpairment score indicates poorermotor
a
o
nl difficulties. The reliability and validity of the M-ABC are based on its
w
o predecessor,theTestofMotorImpairment(TOMI)(Stott,Moyes&Hen-
D
atr derson,1984).Theminimum valueofthetest-retestreliability atanyage
di for the TOMI is 0.75 and of the inter-rater reliability 0.70 (Henderson &
e
P
er Sugden,1992).FortheM-ABC,test-retestreliabilityishighovera1-week
h
T period (0.92 to 0.98), with good concurrent validity with the Bruininks-
p
cu OseretskyTestofMotorProficiency(Bruininks,1978)(moderatePearson
c
O correlation coefficients (r .60 to .90) (Croce, Horvat, & McCarthy, 2001)
s
y
h and high inter-rater reliability (0.95 to 1.00) (Smits-Engelsman, Fiers,
P
Henderson,&Henderson,2008).TheM-ABCisaninternationallyrecog-
nized instrument for identifying children with motor difficulties (Barnett
& Henderson, 1998, Croce et al., 2001). The same senior occupational
therapist(firstauthor)administeredtheM-ABCtoallboys.
Self-DescriptionQuestionnaireI(SDQI;Marsh,1992).TheSDQIisa
76-itemself-reportinventorythatissuitableforprimary-agedchildrenand
12 PHYSICAL&OCCUPATIONALTHERAPYINPEDIATRICS
measuresself-conceptinthefollowingareas:Nonacademic(physicalabil-
ity, physical appearance, peer relations, and parent relations), academic
(reading, mathematics, general school), and general self that measures
overallself-satisfaction.Compositescores—totalacademic,totalnonaca-
demic,andtotalself(theaverageoftotalacademicandtotalnonacademic)
are provided. Marsh (1992) recommends that scores for each domain of
4 self-conceptbeusedinsteadofcompositescoresasevidencesupportsspe-
1
2/ cific and multiple domains of self-concept. Responses were also checked
0
12/ for consistency to correlated items and negativity bias as per the SDQI
n
o manual to ensure responses were valid. The normative data are based on
al
ntre responsesby3,562Australianchildren.
o The definition and model of self-concept proposed by Shavelson et al.
M
of (1976) served as the basis for the SDQI. The SDQI is the most validated
sity self-conceptinstrumentavailable(Byrne,1996).Researchhasshownthat
er factor analyzes have consistently identified each a priori factor; the inter-
v
Uni nalconsistencyreliabilitycoefficientsrangefrom0.81to0.94andthereis
by strongsupportfortheexternalandconstructvalidity(Byrne,1996;Hattie,
m
o 1992;Marsh,1992;Marsh&MacDonaldHolmes,1990).Theconstructva-
are.conly. lidityoftheSDQI,basedonthetheoreticalunderpinningthatself-concept
mahealthcsonal use iMrselamartseuhls,tiiRdgeinmliificechna,sn&iotlnSyamwliiitsthh,w1oe9thl8le1re)s.mtSaecbaolsirsuehrseeosdno(tfsheeseeSlMfD-cQaorInshhcae&vpetbG(Heaeyunmvfeoerlun,neLdt,etM1o9ca8or9er-;,
m inforFor per Dnailtnvearl,id&ityWoofodthye,1S9D9Q9;IMfoarrsAhu&strMaliaacnDsotnuadlednHtsoilsmwese,ll1e9s9t0ab).liTshheedexwteitrh-
o
d fr similarresponsepatternsbeingobservedacrosspublicandprivateschool
de children(Marshetal.,1981).
a
o
nl HigherscoresontheSDQIreflectpositiveself-concept.Whilethereare
w
o norecommendedcut-offscoresthatdefinelowself-concept,scoresbelow
D
atr the 25th percentile are considered low (Marsh, 1992). For the purpose of
di thisstudy,arelativelystringentcut-offmarkwasusedandscoresthatwere
e
P
er less than the 15th percentile were defined as “low” self-concept, which
h
T is consistent with previous research (Hay, Ashman, & van Kraayenoord,
p
cu 1998).
c
O
s
y
h
P
Procedure
After the referral was received, the M-ABC was administered to the
child,inthepresenceoftheparent,inaroomlocatedintheOccupational
TherapyDepartment.Thefirstauthor,whoadministeredtheM-ABCtoall
children,hasextensiveexperienceintheadministrationofthisinstrument
Cocksetal. 13
and has been a senior occupational therapist for over 15 years. Children
then completed the SDQI in the same room with parents not present. In
completing the SDQI, children were asked to respond to simple declara-
tive sentences (e.g. “I’m good at mathematics”) by selecting one of five
responses(False,MostlyFalse,SometimesFalse/SometimesTrue,Mostly
True,True).AllitemsoftheSDQIwerereadoutaloudbythefirstauthorto
4 eachchild.Theassessmenttookapproximately90mintocomplete.Chil-
1
2/ dren with ADHD and taking stimulant medication were assessed while
0
12/ theywereonmedication.
n
o
al
e
ntr
o
M
of DataAnalysis
y
sit
er
niv Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences for
y U Windows (SPSS; Version 11). Scores for all measures were examined
b
m for univariate outliers, fit for normal distribution and test assumptions.
are.coonly. T4haendSDgrQadIepsro5vitdoe6s.nNoormrmataitviveedmateaansespfaorratbeloythfogrrobuopysswineregrcaodmesbi2netod
m informahealthcFor personal use tcwsoaoimntahdpcuhlDecietCtvt-Dhteeesawtanoesarrienlsygicsglioensmtbmepaseastarefendodrovtsnaoclguonreraoe,dsrametshgaattrthiovweuerpeemirnewegnaseon.rteSrnDaionwQrsmuIvfarafialllcwuyieedssncitsoutrsrneiiubnsmugftobearedrb.osoFnyoetos-r
o scores with a non-normal distribution, the median and interquartile range
d fr is reported. An independent t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test was used
e
d
a tocompareself-conceptofchildrenwithDCDandADHDtochildrenwith
o
wnl DCD.Therelationshipbetweenself-conceptdomainsandalsowithmotor
o
D difficulties was examined using Pearson’s product moment, Spearman’s
atr rho, and Kendall’s tau correlations. All tests were two-tailed and level of
di
Pe significance was set at 0.05. The Holm procedure was applied to control
her thefamily-wiseerrorrate(Aickin&Gensler,1996).
T
p
u
c
c
O
s
y
h
P
RESULTS
Table1showsthemedianscoresforsubtestsoftheM-ABCandtheclas-
sification of motor difficulties utilizing Total Impairment Scores. Almost
two-thirds (67%) of the boys had a definite motor impairment and a high
percentageofboyshadmanualdexterityskillsbelowthe5thpercentile.
14 PHYSICAL&OCCUPATIONALTHERAPYINPEDIATRICS
TABLE1. Median(IQ)ScoresfortheM-ABCandClassificationofMotor
Impairment
Median Definite Borderline Normal
M-ABC (IQ) MIn(%) MIn(%) MIn(%)
Totalimpairmentscore 19.00(12.43) 20(67) 10(33) —
4
2/1 Manualdexterity 9.00(6.00) 22(73) 4(13) 4(13)
0 Ballskills 2.75(3.88) 8(27) 10(33) 12(40)
2/
1 Staticanddynamicbalance 7.50(2.25) 15(50) 9(30) 6(20)
n
o
eal M-ABC=MovementAssessmentBatteryforChildren;MI=MotorImpairment
ntr DefiniteMI= <5thpercentile;BorderlineMI=5–15thpercentile;NormalMI= >15thpercentile.
o
M
of
y ExaminationofSelf-ConceptofBoyswithDCD
sit
er
v
ni Boys with DCD had significantly lower mean scores for self-concept
U
y inphysicalabilitiesandpeerrelationswhencomparedtonormativemean
b
m values(Table2).Therewerenoothersignificantdifferences.
o
are.conly.
mahealthcsonal use TCAoBmLpEar2is.oMnesatonsN(oSrDm)aStiveelf-DCaotnac(eMptaSlecsoGrersadfoersB2otyos6w)ithDCDand
m inforFor per DCBDoy(snw=ith30) DSaDtQaI(nNo=rm1,a9t7iv1e)
o
d fr
de SDQIDomain M(SD) M(SD) t(29) p
a
o
wnl Physicalabilities 30.07(7.38) 34.31(5.51) −3.15 .004∗∗
Do Physicalappearance 27.07(9.06) 28.36(8.14) −0.78 .44
atr Peerrelations 25.70(9.53) 31.52(6.30) −3.35 .002∗∗
edi Parentrelations 31.97(6.89) 35.54(5.01) −2.84 .008
P
er Reading 30.57(8.10) 30.27(7.88) 0.20 .84
Th Mathematics 35.50(14.25)a 29.73(8.84) −2.01b .045
p Generalschool 26.83(8.69) 28.33(7.25) −.1.00 .35
u
cc Generalself 30.20(7.73) 32.99(5.60)c −1.98 .06
O
s Totalnonacademic 28.90(6.70) 32.54(4.73) −2.98 .006
y
h Totalacademic 29.63(7.38) 29.43(6.37) 0.15 .88
P
Totalself 29.30(5.87) 31.22(4.68) −1.79 .08
aMedian(IQ)reported
bzvalueforsigntest
cTotalSDQInormativesample(n=1,118),whichincludesgirlsasSDQIhasnopublisheddatafor
malesinGrades2–4.
∗p<.05
∗∗p<.01
Cocksetal. 15
FIGURE 1. Percentage of the boys with DCD who have low self-concept
(<15thpercentile).Maths=Mathematics;GSch=GeneralSchool;GSelf=
GeneralSelf;PhyAbil=PhysicalAbilities;PhyApp=PhysicalAppearance;
Parent=ParentRelations;Peer=PeerRelations.
45
4 40
1
2/ pt
2/0 ce 35
1 n
ntreal on w self-co 2350
Mo Lo 20
y of (%) 15
ersit 10
v
Uni 5
are.com by only. Math Reading G Sch G Self Phy AbilPhy App Parent Peer
mahealthcsonal use andFo4r3ty%pe(r1c3e/n3t0()12h/a3d0)aoflobwoyssehlaf-dcaolnocwepstelffo-cropneceerptrefolartpiohnyssic(Faligaubrileiti1e)s.
m inforFor per Ephigyhsitcya-tlharbeeiliptieerscaenndt (7160%/12(1)0o/f13th)eofbtohyesbwoyhsowhhado hloawd lsoewlf-sceolfn-cceopntcefoprt
o
d fr forpeerrelationshadM-ABCscoresbelowthe5thpercentile.ADHDwas
de present in 43% (5/12) of the boys who had low self-concept in physical
a
nlo abilities and in 69% (9/13) of the boys with low self-concept in peer
w
o relations.
D
atr Mean self-concept scores for boys with DCD and boys with DCD and
di ADHD are presented in Table 3. Boys with DCD and ADHD had signif-
e
P
er icantly poorer self-concept for general school and total academic when
h
T comparedtoboyswithDCD.
p
u
c
c
O RelationshipsBetweenMotorDifficultiesandSelf-Concept
s
y
h
P
Poormotorabilitiesweresignificantlyassociatedwithlowself-concept
forphysicalabilitiesandreading(Table4).Physicalabilitiesself-concept
wassignificantlynegativelycorrelatedwithballskillsandbalancesubtests
of the M-ABC (r = −0.46, p = .001 and r = −0.55, p = .002 respec-
s s
tively). There was no significant association between physical abilities
self-concept and manual dexterity scores (r = 0.02, p = .90). Reading
s