| Sumario: | Aims: Standardised assessment tools for developmental coordination disorder (DCD) do not always seem to agree with each other, which causes problems in making clinical and research decisions. This case study research aims to first determine whether or not three standardised assessment tools converge on diagnostic categories of DCD and, second, examine how useful observational assessment is to understanding the intervention process and the outcomes for selected children who exhibited discrepancies between the standard assessment tools. Methods: Based on the case formulation approach, a 7-week individual intervention program was developed for seven children who had delayed motor development and did not meet the DSM diagnostic exclusion criteria for DCD. The observational assessment of this 7-week, weekly intervention was documented, and a motor performance test and two questionnaires were administered before and after the intervention program. The authors examined the consistency and the discrepancies between the assessment tools regarding diagnostic status by employing methodological triangulation of the observational assessment, the movement test and the questionnaires. Results: The three standardised assessment tools agreed on the DCD categories of four out of the seven children both before and after the intervention. The standardised assessment tools produced discrepant results in the DCD categories of four children. Insights gained from the observational assessment could explain some of the reasons behind the discrepancies. Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers need to recognise discrepancies between different standardised assessment tools, not as errors, but as reflections of multiple aspects of motor development. Critical triangulation serves this purpose. Observational assessment can be useful to reconcile the discrepancy between standardised assessment tools and to make an ultimate clinical judgement for the diagnosis of DCD.
|
|---|