Wendy Aertssen1, Emmanuel Bonney2, Gillian Ferguson3, Bouwien Smits-Engelsman4. 1. Avans(+) University of Professionals, The Netherlands. Electronic address: wendyverhoef@live.nl. 2. Department of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa; Department of Physiotherapy, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana. Electronic address: ebonney10@gmail.com. 3. Department of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: gillian.ferguson@uct.ac.za. 4. Department of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Electronic address: bouwiensmits@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) are known to have poor physical fitness. However, differentiating homogenous subgroups of DCD using fitness performance has not yet been established. Therefore the purpose of this study was to identify subtypes in children with and without DCD using measures of physical fitness. METHOD: Children (aged 6-10 years, n = 217) constituted the sample for this study. They were assessed on 1) aerobic fitness (20m Shuttle Run test), 2) anaerobic fitness (Muscle Power Sprint Test), 3) isometric muscle strength (handheld dynamometry) 4) functional upper and lower body strength (Functional Strength Measurement) and 5) motor coordination [Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2nd edition (MABC-2) test]. The Ward method was used to identify the various clusters. RESULTS: Five subtypes emerged in the entire sample. In the typically developing (TD) children mainly 2 subtypes (number 5 and 2) were found containing 89% of the TD children (n = 55), with the largest group demonstrating above average performance on all measures (cluster 5). Children in subtype 2 had just above average motor coordination and good aerobic fitness but lower muscle strength. Subtypes 1, 3 and 4 were clearly "DCD" clusters, however they showed difference in fitness performance. Subtype 1 contained children with DCD who showed poor performance on all fitness outcomes (n = 45). Children with DCD in subtype 3 had poor aerobic but average strength and anaerobic fitness (n = 48). Subtype 4 contained children with DCD (n = 45) who had good muscle strength and anaerobic fitness. Of these, 36% were at risk of DCD while 24% had definite motor coordination problems. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that children with and without DCD demonstrate heterogeneous physical fitness profiles. The majority of the children (66%) with DCD belonged to subtypes with lower fitness performance. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in other samples of DCD children.
PURPOSE:Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) are known to have poor physical fitness. However, differentiating homogenous subgroups of DCD using fitness performance has not yet been established. Therefore the purpose of this study was to identify subtypes in children with and without DCD using measures of physical fitness. METHOD:Children (aged 6-10 years, n = 217) constituted the sample for this study. They were assessed on 1) aerobic fitness (20m Shuttle Run test), 2) anaerobic fitness (Muscle Power Sprint Test), 3) isometric muscle strength (handheld dynamometry) 4) functional upper and lower body strength (Functional Strength Measurement) and 5) motor coordination [Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2nd edition (MABC-2) test]. The Ward method was used to identify the various clusters. RESULTS: Five subtypes emerged in the entire sample. In the typically developing (TD) children mainly 2 subtypes (number 5 and 2) were found containing 89% of the TD children (n = 55), with the largest group demonstrating above average performance on all measures (cluster 5). Children in subtype 2 had just above average motor coordination and good aerobic fitness but lower muscle strength. Subtypes 1, 3 and 4 were clearly "DCD" clusters, however they showed difference in fitness performance. Subtype 1 contained children with DCD who showed poor performance on all fitness outcomes (n = 45). Children with DCD in subtype 3 had poor aerobic but average strength and anaerobic fitness (n = 48). Subtype 4 contained children with DCD (n = 45) who had good muscle strength and anaerobic fitness. Of these, 36% were at risk of DCD while 24% had definite motor coordination problems. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that children with and without DCD demonstrate heterogeneous physical fitness profiles. The majority of the children (66%) with DCD belonged to subtypes with lower fitness performance. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in other samples of DCD children.