Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To identify self-report instruments used to assess developmental coordination disorder (DCD) in adults and to evaluate the quality of their psychometric properties.</p> Methods <p>A systematic review was conducted in two stages in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and COSMIN guidance. Seven databases and Google Scholar were searched. Search 1 identified self-report instruments used with adults with DCD. Search 2 retrieved studies on the development, adaptation, and psychometric evaluation of the instruments identified in search 1. Measurement properties and risk of bias were appraised using COSMIN procedures.</p> Results <p>Three instruments were identified: the Adult Developmental Coordination Disorders/Dyspraxia Checklist (ADC), the Functional Difficulties Questionnaire (FDQ-9), and the Adolescents and Adults Coordination Questionnaire (AAC-Q). Across instruments, the strongest evidence was found for selected aspects of structural validity and internal consistency, whereas content validity, reliability, and responsiveness were insufficient or absent. Major limitations were observed in instrument development, concept elicitation, comprehensibility testing, and content-validation procedures. Overall, the available evidence was not strong enough to support any instrument as a psychometrically robust standalone tool for adult DCD assessment.</p> Conclusions <p>Current self-report instruments for adult DCD may help document perceived motor and functional difficulties, but they lack sufficiently strong psychometric evidence to support confident use as standalone measures for diagnosis or research classification. Future studies should prioritize rigorous content validation with adults, followed by high-quality evaluation of structural validity, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, and responsiveness.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Psychometric Properties of Self-report Instruments Used in the Assessment of Developmental Coordination Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月5日

查看全文
  • Ericles de Paiva Vieira,
  • Francisco Camolesi Ide,
  • Pâmella de Medeiros,
  • João Otacilio Libardoni,
  • Iramar Baptistella do Nascimento,
  • Fernando Luiz Cardoso

摘要

Objectives

To identify self-report instruments used to assess developmental coordination disorder (DCD) in adults and to evaluate the quality of their psychometric properties.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in two stages in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and COSMIN guidance. Seven databases and Google Scholar were searched. Search 1 identified self-report instruments used with adults with DCD. Search 2 retrieved studies on the development, adaptation, and psychometric evaluation of the instruments identified in search 1. Measurement properties and risk of bias were appraised using COSMIN procedures.

Results

Three instruments were identified: the Adult Developmental Coordination Disorders/Dyspraxia Checklist (ADC), the Functional Difficulties Questionnaire (FDQ-9), and the Adolescents and Adults Coordination Questionnaire (AAC-Q). Across instruments, the strongest evidence was found for selected aspects of structural validity and internal consistency, whereas content validity, reliability, and responsiveness were insufficient or absent. Major limitations were observed in instrument development, concept elicitation, comprehensibility testing, and content-validation procedures. Overall, the available evidence was not strong enough to support any instrument as a psychometrically robust standalone tool for adult DCD assessment.

Conclusions

Current self-report instruments for adult DCD may help document perceived motor and functional difficulties, but they lack sufficiently strong psychometric evidence to support confident use as standalone measures for diagnosis or research classification. Future studies should prioritize rigorous content validation with adults, followed by high-quality evaluation of structural validity, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, and responsiveness.