{"title":"Evaluation of Motor Skills With Functional Dexterity Test in Children With ADHD and Comparison With Healthy Controls.","authors":"Nuray Akkaya, Bürge Kabukçu Başay, Özkan Urak, Ömer Başay, Füsun Şahin","doi":"10.1177/10870547241306563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aimed to investigate whether the fine motor skills measured by the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT) in ADHD children differ from healthy controls. The second aim was to assess the applicability of the FDT assessment method among ADHD children.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The FDT results as an objective assessment of hand skills were compared between 7 and 17 years old ADHD cases (<i>n</i> = 146) and age and gender-matched healthy controls (<i>n</i> = 213).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found lower dominant and non-dominant processing time (respectively for dominant hand and non-dominant hand <i>p</i> = .001, effect size Cliff's Delta = .22; <i>p</i> = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .29), higher peg processing speed (<i>p</i> = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .23; <i>p</i> = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .29), higher total error (<i>p</i> = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .40; <i>p</i> = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .51), and total FDT time (<i>p</i> = .0017, ES Cliff's Delta = .14; <i>p</i> = .011, ES Cliff's Delta = .16) in ADHD patients compared to healthy controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Manual dexterity evaluation would be helpful to detect the fine motor skill deficits of ADHD children. Although ADHD children were advantageous regarding speed, they were disadvantageous regarding processing errors and total process time. Therefore, the error time data should be considered in evaluating ADHD children, unlike healthy children.</p>","PeriodicalId":15237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Attention Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"10870547241306563"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Attention Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547241306563","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The study aimed to investigate whether the fine motor skills measured by the Functional Dexterity Test (FDT) in ADHD children differ from healthy controls. The second aim was to assess the applicability of the FDT assessment method among ADHD children.
Method: The FDT results as an objective assessment of hand skills were compared between 7 and 17 years old ADHD cases (n = 146) and age and gender-matched healthy controls (n = 213).
Results: We found lower dominant and non-dominant processing time (respectively for dominant hand and non-dominant hand p = .001, effect size Cliff's Delta = .22; p = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .29), higher peg processing speed (p = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .23; p = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .29), higher total error (p = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .40; p = .001, ES Cliff's Delta = .51), and total FDT time (p = .0017, ES Cliff's Delta = .14; p = .011, ES Cliff's Delta = .16) in ADHD patients compared to healthy controls.
Conclusion: Manual dexterity evaluation would be helpful to detect the fine motor skill deficits of ADHD children. Although ADHD children were advantageous regarding speed, they were disadvantageous regarding processing errors and total process time. Therefore, the error time data should be considered in evaluating ADHD children, unlike healthy children.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Attention Disorders (JAD) focuses on basic and applied science concerning attention and related functions in children, adolescents, and adults. JAD publishes articles on diagnosis, comorbidity, neuropsychological functioning, psychopharmacology, and psychosocial issues. The journal also addresses practice, policy, and theory, as well as review articles, commentaries, in-depth analyses, empirical research articles, and case presentations or program evaluations.