Wilson 2002.

Methods	Blocked RCT in an unblinded trial.
Participants	Number screened: not stated. Number included: 54. Number followed up: 54. Number of withdrawals: no information. Diagnosis of DCD: no information. Presence and absence of comorbid conditions: children excluded if they had current or history of neurological disease, including head injury, psychiatric disorders, or attention‐deficit disorder. Regarding participants completing the study Age: 7 to 12 years. Sex: no information. Ethnicity: no information. Country: Australia. Setting: assessment conducted at schools, and training interventions provided in the Centre for Movement Education and Research, Griffith University. Sociodemographics: no information. Inclusion criteria Physical education teachers' identification of displayed poor motor co‐ordination, given age and intelligence that interfered with academic achievement or activities of daily living. Parental consent to assess using MABC test. MABC test < 50th percentile. Exclusion criteria Current or history of neurological disease, including head injury, psychiatric disorders, or attention‐deficit disorder.
Interventions	Intervention: image training vs traditional perceptual‐motor training vs inactive control. Intervention schedule of traditional perceptual‐motor training programme: 60 min once/wk. Duration of intervention: 5 wk. Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face individual sessions. Intervention material: image training: a selection of fundamental motor skills (catching a tennis ball, throwing a tennis ball, striking a softball, jumping to a target using a 2‐leg take‐off, balancing a ball on a bat while walking, and placing objects using a formboard); traditional perceptual‐motor training: combination of gross‐motor, fine‐motor, and perceptual‐motor activities (hopping, skipping, jumping, climbing, and marching activities with hoops, ropes, ladders, and a trampoline; throwing, catching, and striking balls and quoits; scooter boards; balance beams, boards, and balls; fitball aerobics; pegwork; origami; and handwriting activities). Intervention procedure: image training: observation of video‐audio sequences of a selection of fundamental motor skills, mental exercise, and physical practise; traditional perceptual‐motor training: approach was client centred, with sufficient scope for children to engage in activities of interest while at the same time developing areas of weakness. Intervention provider: 2 research assistants with experience in conventional approaches to perceptual‐motor therapy. Place of intervention: Centre for Movement Education and Research, Griffith University. Intervention compliance: no information.
Outcomes	Primary MABC test. Adverse effects or events: no information. Measures of participation: no information.
Notes	Study start date: not available. Study completion date: not available. Sample calculation: no information. Ethics approval: yes. Comments from study authors Limitations: brief duration of intervention programmes; possibility of a Hawthorne effect. Key conclusions of study authors Imagery training is as effective as traditional perceptual‐motor training. A deficit in the internal representation of movement parameters is a cause of motor clumsiness. Comment from review authors Not all children below the 50th percentile have DCD. Email correspondence with study authors: January 2016. We wrote to the authors twice to request supplementary information on data but received no reply.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Not stated. No reply to enquiry.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not stated. No reply to enquiry.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not stated, but impossible anyway.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Independent evaluator blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No dropouts.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No protocol obtained. All prespecified outcomes of interest reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Funding: research funded by an Australian Research Council grant awarded by Griffith University. Conflict of interest: no information available. Small numbers.