Background: Standardised assessment tools for developmental coordination disorder (DCD) do not always seem to agree to each other. This causes problems in making clinical and research decisions.

Objectives: This case study research aims to (1) determine whether or not three standardised assessment tools converge on diagnostic categories of DCD; (2) conduct observational assessment of the intervention process and outcome of selected children who exhibited discrepancies between the standard assessment tools; (3) map out the complexity surrounding assessment and diagnosis of DCD.

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 developmental coordination disorder (DCD) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The observational assessment of the weekly intervention was documented, and a motor performance test and two questionnaires were administered before and after the intervention program. Methodological triangulation of the observational assessment, the movement test and the questionnaires were employed to examine the consistency and the discrepancies between the assessment tools with regard to the diagnostic status.

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 in error terms, but as reflections of multiple aspects in motor development.

Reference

American Psychiatric Association (2000) DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington, DC.