Table 3.

(A) Outcome measures used in each article. See 3B for article citations. (B) Outcomes separated by the domains of the ICF framework.

(A)
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8a	9a	10	11	12b	13b	14c	15	16	17	18	19d	20c	21	22d	23
Behavioural video coding
Driving mobility			X	X	X	X			X		X				X	X					X
Visual attention to switch				X	X	X			X		X
Switch contacts											X
Stop at target				X					X
Reaches				X	X	X
Facial expressions			X	X	X	X			X						X
Vocalizations				X
Natural play				X	X											X
Play/social behaviours			X				X		X	X
Standardized assessments
PEDI				X	X			X			X	X
Bayley																					X
Use tracking
Activity log				X	X						X	X			X	X		X	X		X
Electronic tracking																			X
Interview methods
Family interview				X	X												X	X		X		X	X
Clinician interview																		X
Anecdotal				X																X
Photo narration														X
Personal factors
Goal Attainment Scaling												X
Mastery questionnaire													X
Power mobility skills checklist																X							X
Family factors
Parental Stress Index								X				X
Affordance in the Home Environment for Motor Development (AHEMD)													X

(B)
Article	Body structure and function	Activity	Participation	Environmental and personal factors
1. Zazula & Foulds (1983)	None	Child was able to fully control MROC	None	None
2. Chiulli et al. (1988)	Improved symmetry of trunk alignment and upright postural stance	None	None	None
3. Deitz et al. (2002)	None	Increased movement for both children	Mixed results for contact behaviours with peers and adults	No substantial changes in affect
4. Huang et al. (2014)	Visual attention to switch decreased Increased upright head and trunk position, and more head and arm movements	Learned to independently press the activation switch Learned to stop independently at a target Improvement in functional mobility (PEDI) Increased reaching during MROC play but not natural play	Increased physical and social interaction with family Improvement in functional social skills (PEDI) Demonstrated new play behaviours Dad started playing ball with child - family noted that these were some of the first father-son play sessions	Increased positive facial expressions for MROC and natural play High enjoyment Family’s understanding of child’s abilities increased Vocalized more during intervention to express positive emotions
5. Logan et al. (2014)	Visual attention to switch increased from baseline to intervention, then declined during follow-up	Learned to independently press the activation switch Little reaching during MROC sessions Decreased reaching during natural play over the course of the intervention. Improvement in functional and caregiver assisted mobility (PEDI)	Improved functional and caregiver assisted self-care and social skills (PEDI) Increased socialisation with sister	Positive facial expressions increased. High variability with negative facial expressions High enjoyment Changed parents’ perception of powered mobility device use Family noticed frustration during follow-up period due to lack of MROC
6. Logan et al. (2016)	None	All children learned to independently press the activation switch Two of three children used the MROC for open exploration of the environment	Child C used MROC to play hide-and-seek and interact with peers	Two of the three children displayed a majority of positive facial expressions One child displayed a majority of negative facial expressions Changed caregiver’s expectations of child’s abilities
7. Logan et al. (2017)	None	Child was less fatigued and faster when using a MROC compared to forearm crutches	Engaged in less solitary play and more parallel play in the gymnasium while using a MROC compared to forearm crutches Engaged in more peer interaction, including complex social games like tag and role playing, and less teacher interaction on the playground when using a MROC compared to forearm crutches	None
8. Huang & Chen (2017)a	None	Treatment group: Significant improvement in mobility function. 4 of 10 children demonstrated clinically significant gains in mobility function (PEDI). Control group: No improvement in mobility function. 2 of 10 children demonstrated clinically significant gains in functional mobility (PEDI).	Treatment group: Significant improvement in social function. 3 of 10 children demonstrated clinically significant gains in social function (PEDI). Control group: Significant improvement in social function. 1 of 10 children demonstrated clinically significant gains in social function (PEDI).	Treatment group: Significantly decreased scores of parenting stress. Control group: No changes in parenting stress.
9. Huang et al. (2017)a	Visual attention to switch decreased	All children learned to independently press the activation switch All children learned to stop independently at target.	Few child-initiated social interactions. Social interactions with children from adults increased slightly.	Positive facial expressions did not increase during MROC play but did increase during natural play
10. Ross et al. (2018)	None	None	Child B increased direct peer interactions. Child C decreased solitary play and increased adult interactions. Child E increased parallel peer play. More interactions between children with and without disabilities Friendships established during the inclusive playgroup continued after the study	None
11.. Logan et al. (2018)	Two of three children demonstrated a co-occurrence trend between visual attention and switch contacts	All children learned to independently press the activation switch Two children demonstrated clinically significant changes in functional and caregiver assisted mobility (PEDI)	Child B noticed a cat 20 feet away, pointed to it, and used the MROC to go play with it	High enjoyment
12. Huang, Chen, et al. (2018)b	None	Treatment group: Significant improvement in mobility function. Caregivers reported that children were more active and mobile outside of the ROC than before the intervention. Control group: Significant improvement in mobility function	Treatment group: Significant improvement in social function. Significant improvement in goal achievement at posttest compared to the control group	Treatment group: Significantly decreased parental stress Control group: No changes in parenting stress
13. Huang, Huang, et al. (2018)b	None	None	Treatment group: Significantly greater improvements of object persistence compared to control group	Treatment and control groups: Significant improvements in mastery pleasure and home affordances scores
14. Feldner et al. (2019)c	None	MROC and powered mobility device facilitated mobility	Mom and child both independently identified an increase in participation Played tag and chase	Mom still did not want a powered wheelchair following end of study but was very supportive of MROC use Mom reported she would not have pursued MROC without support of a physical therapist
15. Logan, Catena et al. (2019)	Families reported that the children practiced pulling to stand and supported standing more often in the MROC compared to outside of the MROC	Three of four children learned to independently press the activation switch in both seated and standing modes Three of the four children learned to engage in goal directed mobility	Children used MROC to openly explore environment Increased sibling play	Displayed a majority of positive facial expressions High enjoyment
16. Plummer (2019)	None	Increased scores on power mobility skills checklist	Increased social interaction	Increased environmental interaction Increased positive facial expressions and vocalizations
17. Restrepo et al. (2019)	None	All children learned how to press the activation switch	None	All parents rated the experience as “extremely fun”
18. Pritchard-Wiart et al. (2019)	One family reported increased crawling outside of the MROC after the study began	Four of five children were able to be fitted into a MROC Three of four children learned to press the activation switch with low assistance	Increased opportunities to play and socialize with siblings and children in the community Greater engagement in activities as a family Primarily used MROC outdoors	Parents reported being more open to the idea of other powered mobility options and therapists agreed it encouraged conversation High enjoyment Parents rated children as highly motivated
19. Logan, Hospodar, et al. (2019)d	None	Greater use of MROCs in the first 45 days compared to the last 45 days Child with the most severe mobility limitations used the MROC the most	MROC used in home, outdoors, and community spaces	Moderate enjoyment
20. Feldner (2019)c	None	Able to activate and manoeuvre the MROC	Increased participation in the classroom and on the playground	Changed parental perceptions regarding child’s ability and disability identity
21. Hospodar et al. (2020)	Most motor milestones achieved earlier than expected for DS norms	All children learned to independently press the activation switch in both seated and standing modes	None	None
22. Logan et al. (2020)d	None	None	None	Environmental and device barriers were the most frequently reported at pre- and post-intervention
23. Livingstone et al. (2020)	None	Children able to activate car	None	Environmental factors were not related to parent device preference. Children’s ability to use difference devices and parent device preferences were varied depending upon several factors.

Superscript letters denote pairs of articles that used the same sample (e.g., 8^a and 9^a are different papers published from the same study).