A systematic review of instruments for assessment of capacity in activities of daily living in children with developmental co-ordination disorder

Children with developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD) face evident motor difficulties in activities of daily living (ADL). Assessment of their capacity in ADL is essential for diagnosis and intervention, in order to limit the daily consequences of the disorder. The aim of this study is to systematically review potential instruments for standardized and objective assessment of children's capacity in ADL, suited for children with DCD. As a first step, databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched to identify studies that described instruments with potential for assessment of capacity in ADL. Second, instruments were included for review when two independent reviewers agreed that the instruments: (1) are standardized and objective; (2) assess at activity level and comprise items that reflect ADL, and; (3) are applicable to school-aged children that can move independently. Out of 1507 publications, 66 publications were selected, describing 39 instruments. Seven of these instruments were found to fulfil the criteria and were included for review: the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Performance-2 (BOT2); the Do-Eat (Do-Eat); the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC2); the school-Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (schoolAMPS); the Tuffts Assessment of Motor Performance (TAMP); the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD); and the Functional Independence Measure for Children (WeeFIM). As a third step, for the included instruments, suitability for children with DCD was discussed based on the ADL comprised, ecological validity and other psychometric properties. We concluded that current instruments do not provide comprehensive and ecologically valid assessment of capacity in ADL as required for children with DCD.

Review of Diagnostic Screening Instruments for Alcohol and Other Drug Use and Other Psychiatric Disorders

In recent years there has been a growing recognition that many people with drug or alcohol problems are also experiencing a range of other psychiatric and psychological problems. The presence of concurrent psychiatric or psychological problems is likely to impact on the success of treatment services. These problems vary greatly, from undetected major psychiatric illnesses that meet internationally accepted diagnostic criteria such as those outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (1994), to less defined feelings of low mood and anxiety that do not meet diagnostic criteria but nevertheless impact on an individual’s sense of wellbeing and affect their quality of life. Similarly, the presence of a substance misuse problem among those suffering from a major psychiatric illness, often goes undetected. For example, the use of illicit drugs such as cannabis and amphetamine is higher among those individuals suffering from schizophrenia (Hall, 1992) and the misuse of alcohol in people suffering from schizophrenia is well documented (e.g., Gorelick et al., 1990; Searles et al., 1990; Soyka et al., 1993). High rates of alcohol misuse have also been reported in a number of groups including women presenting for treatment with a primary eating disorder (Holderness, Brooks Gunn, & Warren, 1994), individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (Seidel, Gusman and Aubueg, 1994), and those suffering from anxiety and depression. Despite considerable evidence of high levels of co-morbidity, drug and alcohol treatment agencies and mainstream psychiatric services often fail to identify and respond to concurrent psychiatric or drug and alcohol problems, respectively. The original review was conducted as a first step in providing clinicians with information on screening and diagnostic instruments that may be used to assess previously unidentified co-morbidity. The current revision was conducted to extend the original review by updating psychometric findings on measures in the original review, and incorporating other frequently used measures that were not previously included. The current revision has included information regarding special populations, specifically Indigenous Australians, older persons and adolescents. The objectives were to: ● update the original review of AOD and psychiatric screening/diagnostic instruments, ● recommend when these instruments should be used, by whom and how they should be interpreted, ● identify limitations and provide recommendations for further research, ● refer the reader to pertinent Internet sites for further information and/or purchasing of assessment instruments.