Two distinct forms of minor neurological dysfunction: perspectives emerging from a review of data of the Groningen Perinatal Project

Abstract

In the past 40 years, children with minor developmental motor disorders have been studied by professionals from various fields: paediatricians, neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and physical and occupational therapists. The differences in background of these professionals led to a plethora of terms used to refer to these conditions: e.g. minimal cerebral palsy, minimal cerebral dysfunction, developmental apraxia or dyspraxia, minimal brain dysfunction, sensory integrative dysfunction, and developmental coordination disorder. It was generally acknowledged that such a multitude of names was confusing and so, in 1994, an international consensus meeting of professionals from various fields agreed to use the term ‘developmental coordination disorder’ (DCD). DCD in general refers to children with normal intelligence who have poor motor coordination without clear evidence of a neurological pathology, such as cerebral palsy (CP) or muscular dystrophy. In other words, DCD is a ‘final common output’ term, without aetiological or pathophysiological foundation. The advantage of such an umbrella term is that it includes all children with motor problems that interfere with their daily life, i.e. children who deserve clinical attention. However, the disadvantage of the term DCD is its aspecificity. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that children with DCD constitute a heterogeneous population with various types of motor dysfunction.