Table 3.

Systematic review: Individual study characteristics (n = 9)

Reference	Study design	Details of participants	Intervention	Intervention dose regimens	Outcomes (measures)	Intervention approach	PEDro score
Polatajko et al. 1995 [10]	Randomised control trial	Source: children referred to the Home Care School Program Middlesex, UK Age: 7 to 13 years. Diagnosis: DCD N = 74 Gender (male/female): not reported	Group 1 Kinaesthetic training vs no treatment Group 2 “Traditional treatment” vs no treatment	Intervention Group 1 (n =26) Two to three 20 min sessions per week for a maximum of 12 sessions over 5 weeks or until the child could perform the task to criteria. Group 2 (n = 24) Two to three 45 min sessions per week for a total of 24 sessions over 9 weeks involving sensory integrative, gross motor, fine motor and perceptual motor interventions Control (n = 26) No treatment	Primary Gross motor skills (TOMI; Ball skills; static and dynamic balance Secondary None reported Post-test measures Group 1: 13 weeks Group 2: 13 weeks Group 3: 9 weeks after the end of treatment	Group 1 Process- orientated Group 2 Traditional	6
Ledebt et al. 2005 [44]	Randomised control trial	Source: medical centre of Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Age: 5 to 11 years Diagnosis: CP GMFCS1 - spastic hemiplegia N = 10 Gender: not reported.	Balance training (to improve gait) vs no training	Intervention (n = 5) 18 sessions total; three 30 min sessions per week for 6 weeks; static and dynamic balance tasks included. Control (n = 5) No training	Primary Balance (Centre of Pressure force platform measures during quiet and dynamic stance balance) Gait (step length symmetry in gait) Secondary None reported Post-test measures Time 1: 6–7 weeks post baseline Time 2: no later than 10 weeks post time 1	Task-orientated	3
Peens et al. 2008 [43]	Randomised control trial	Source: nine different primary schools in the Potchesfstroom district in North-west Province of South Africa Age: 7 to 9 years Diagnosis: DCD N = 58 Gender (male/female): not reported	Group 1 “Motor based” intervention vs no intervention Group 2 Psychological intervention vs no intervention Group 3 Psycho-motor intervention vs no intervention	Intervention Group 1 (n = 20) Two 30 min sessions per week for 8 weeks involving task specific kinaesthetic and sensory integration interventions Group 2 (n = 10) Weekly 45 mins intervention for 8 weeks involving self-concept enhancement Group 3 (n = 11) Three sessions per week for 8 weeks involving two 30 min “motor” based sessions and one 45 min psychological session (as described above) Control (n = 17) No intervention	Primary Gross motor skills (TOMI; Ball skills; static and dynamic balance) Secondary Child self-concept (TSCS –CF) Anxiety (CAS) Post-test measures All groups at 8 and 16 weeks	Group 1 Process- orientated Group 2 Psychological Group 3 Process- orientated and psychological	4
Tsai et al. 2009 [45]	Randomised control trial	Source: mainstream classrooms in southern Taiwan Age: 9 to 10 years Diagnosis: DCD N = 27 Gender (male/female): not reported	Table tennis vs regular class room activities and no training	Intervention (n = 13): Three 50 min training sessions per week over a 10 week period. Training intervention performed in sequence of increasing complexity. Control (n =14): No treatment	Primary Gross motor skills (M-ABC; Ball skills and Static/dynamic balance categories) Secondary None reported Post-test measures At 10 weeks	Task-orientated	3
Hillier et al. 2010 [46]	Randomised control trial	Source: Minimal Motor Disorder Unit of Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, Australia Age: 5 to 8 years Diagnosis: DCD N = 13 Gender (male/female): not reported	Aquatic therapy vs waiting list	Intervention (n = 6) Weekly 30 min sessions over a 6–8 week period (maximum of 6 sessions) in 1:1 format involving task specific training of ball skills, standing balance and walking/running. Control (n = 6) Waiting list.	Primary Gross motor skills (M-ABC; Ball skills and Static/dynamic balance categories) Secondary Child’s self-concept (PSPCSA) Parent’s perception of changes in their child’s participation (0–5 Likert scale) Post-test measures End of the 6th session ie 6–8 weeks	Traditional	7
Chrysagis et al. 2012 [47]	Randomised control trial	Source: special school for students with physical disabilities, Athens, Greece Age: 15 to 18 years Diagnosis: CP GMFCS1 - spastic diplegia N = 4 Gender (male/female): 0/4	Treadmill training without body weight vs individual gross motor activities (conventional physiotherapy).	Intervention (n = 2) Three 30 min sessions per week over 12 weeks. Each session included a 10 min warm-up and 5 min cool-down Control (n = 2) Three 45 min sessions per week over 12 weeks. Each session consisted of three 15 min sets of mat activities, balance and gait training and functional gross motor activities (i.e. usual care)	Primary Gross motor function (GMFM) Gait (self-selected walkingspeed) Secondary None reported Post-test measures End of 12 weeks	Task-orientated	8
Fong et al. 2012 [48]	Randomised control trial	Source: local child assessment centres and hospitals, Hong Kong Age: 6 to 9 years. Diagnosis: DCD N = 44 Gender (male/female): 35/9 Intervention group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 2), Autistic spectrum disorder (n = 1) Control group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 3)	Taekwondo vs no training	Intervention (n = 21) Weekly 1 h session of training for 12 consecutive weeks (including daily home exercise program) Control (n = 23) No training	Primary Static balance (Unilateral Stance Test using non-dominant leg) Sensory organisation of balance (Sensory Organisation Test) Secondary Compliance to daily home exercise program monitored by log book (based on activities from Taekwondo sessions) Post-test measures End of 12 weeks	Task-orientated	6
Fong et al. 2013 [49]	Randomised control trial	Source: local child assessment centres and hospitals, Hong Kong Age: 6 to 9 years. Diagnosis: DCD N = 44 Gender (male/female): 35/9 Intervention group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 2), Autistic spectrum disorder (n = 1) Control group includes Asperger syndrome (n = 3)	Taekwondo vs no training	Intervention (n = 21) Weekly 1 h session of training for 12 consecutive weeks (including daily home exercise program) Control (n = 23) No training	Primary Static balance (Unilateral Stance Test using dominant leg) Reactive balance (Motor Control Test) Muscle strength (isokinetic concentric knee flexion and extension) Secondary Compliance to daily home exercise program monitored by log book (based on activities from Taekwondo sessions) Post-test measures End of 12 weeks	Task-orientated	6
Hammond et al. 2014 [50]	Randomised crossover controlled trial	Source: two primary schools in Mid-Sussex, UK Age: 7 to 10 years Diagnosis: DCD N = 18 Gender (male/female): 14/4	Wii Fit vs usual care Phase 1 Wii Fit vs usual care Phase 2 Usual care vs Wii Fit 2.5 months between Phase 1 and 2	Intervention (n = 10) Weekly 10 mins of supervised play 3 times over a 4 week period. Children could choose from 8 Wii – Fit games which focus on balance and coordination. Control (n = 8) Usual care: 1 h per week of school-run Jump Ahead intervention practicing “motor skills”	Primary Gross motor skills (BOT-2 SF; bilateral-coordination, strength, balance, running speed and agility, upper limb co-ordination) Secondary Child satisfaction (CSQ) Post-test measures Phase 1: End of week 4 Phase 2: End of week 18	Task-orientated	5

BOT-2 SF: Bruininks Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency – Second Edition, Short Form, CAS: Child Anxiety Scale, CSQ: The Co-ordination Skills Questionnaire, DCD: Developmental Coordination Disorder, FES: Functional Electrical Stimulation, GMFCS 1: Gross Motor Function Classification System Level 1, GMFM: Gross Motor Function Measure, M-ABC: Movement Assessment for Children, MCT: Motor Control Test, PSPCSA: Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance, SOT: Sensory Organisation Test, TSCS-CF: The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Child Form), TOMI: Test of Motor Impairment, UST: Unilateral Stance Test, UK: United Kingdom, USA: United States of America