The efficacy of Le Bon Départ and Sensory Integration treatment for children with developmental coordination disorder: a randomized study with six single cases
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2000
The efficacy of Le Bon Départ and Sensory Integration treatment for children with developmental coordination disorder: a randomized study with six single cases
Objective: Evaluation of the efficacy of Le Bon Départ (LBD) treatment and Sensory Integration (SI) treatment on motor performance of children with developmental coordination disorder.
Design: A single subject design with multiple baseline and alternating treatments. Order of treatment and length of phase were randomized. Measurements were blinded.
Setting: Department of Occupational Therapy at the Academic Hospital Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Subjects: Five boys and one girl with developmental coordination disorder (age: 6.0–8.1 years).
Interventions: Baseline condition, Le Bon Départ treatment and Sensory Integration treatment.
Main outcome measures: The Movement ABC, Praxis Tests, a rhythm test and visual analogue scales. With the exception of the Praxis Tests, lower scores indicate better performance.
Results: During both treatments, the performance on the Movement ABC (x̄ = 7.21) and the scores on the visual analogue scales (x̄ = 46.64) were significantly better than in the baseline (Movement ABCbaseline: x̄ = 17.38; visual analogue scalesbaseline: x̄= 68.18). After treatment 2, performance on the Praxis Tests and scores on the visual analogue scales were significantly better than after treatment 1 (Praxis Tests: 113.54 versus 104.68; visual analogue scales: 34.74 versus 58.54). All six children performed better on the Movement ABC during treatment as compared to the baseline. Le Bon Départ led to significant improvement on all dependent variables, Sensory Integration on the visual analogue scales only. The improvements after Le Bon Départ were larger than the improvements after Sensory Integration treatment. On the rhythm test this difference was significant: LBD led to an improvement of 43.01 points, while the improvement after SI was 17.59 points (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Motor performance of children with developmental coordination disorder improved significantly on all dependent variables after the combination of treatments. Le Bon Départ led to more improvement than Sensory Integration. LBD appears to be a valuable treatment method for children with developmental coordination disorder.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chase MA, Dummer GM. The role of sports as a social status determinant for children. Res Q Exerc Sport1992; 63: 418–424.
2.
Bouffard M, Watkinson EJ, Thompson LP, Causgrove Dunn JL, Romanov SKE. A test of the activity deficit hypothesis with children with movement difficulties. Adapt Phys Act Q1996; 13: 61–73.
3.
DSM-IV. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
4.
Schoemaker MM, Schellekens JMH, Kalverboer AF, Kooistra L. Pattern drawing by clumsy children: A problem of movement control? In: Simmer ML, Hulstijn W, Girouard W eds. Contemporary issues in the forensic, developmental and neurological aspects of handwriting, 1994: 45–64.
5.
Volman MJM, Geuze RH. Stability of rhythmic finger movements in children with a developmental coordination disorder. Motor Contr1998; 2: 34–60.
6.
Smyth TR. Impaired motor skill (clumsiness) in otherwise normal children. Child Care Health Dev1992; 18: 283–300.
7.
Schoemaker MM, Kalverboer AF. Social and affective problems in children who are clumsy: How early do they begin?Adapt Phys Act Q1994; 11: 130–140.
8.
Geuze RH, Börger H. Children who are clumsy: five years later. Adapt Phys Act Q1993; 10: 10–21.
9.
Cantell MH, Smyth MM, Ahonen TP. Clumsiness in adolescence: educational, motor, and social outcomes of motor delay detected at 5 years. Adapt Phys Act Q1994; 11: 115–129.
10.
Dewey D. What is developmental dyspraxia?Brain Cogn1995; 29: 254–274.
11.
McConell D. Processes underlying clumsiness: a review of perspectives. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr1995; 15(3): 33–52.
12.
Shanks Sellers J. Clumsiness: review of causes, treatments and outlook. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr1995; 15(4): 39–55.
13.
Kavale K, Mattson PD. One jumped off the balance beam: meta-analysis of perceptual motor training. J Learn Disabil1983; 16: 165–173.
14.
Sigmundsson H, Pedersen AV, Whiting HTA, Ingvaldsen RP. We can cure your child's clumsiness! A review of intervention methods. Scand J Rehabil Med1997; 29: 1–6.
15.
Le Bon Départ manual and songs. Breda: Stichting Le Bon Départ, 1990.
16.
Van Gunsteren W, De Richemont O, Van Wermeskerken L. Houdingsweerstand therapie Bugnet[Postural resistence therapy Bugnet]. Den Haag: Frederick Hendrik Stichting, 1984.
17.
Bogdanowicz M. Metoda dobrega startu[The method the good start]. Warsaw: Wydawnicta Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, 1985.
18.
Morin-Lormand J, Koechlin D. Le Bon Départ: une technique de rééducation psycho-motrice. [Le Bon Départ: a technique of psychomotor re-education]. Revue des Associations Régionales pour la Sauvegarde de l'Enfance et de l'Adolescence1961; 16: 1–10.
19.
Morin-Lormand J. L'orientation des sujets presentant des troubles legers de la motricité, sans paralysie neurologique. [Orientation on subjects with mild motor problems without neurological paralysis]. Rev Neuropsychiatr Infant1963; 11: 230–237.
20.
Morin-Lormand J, Fargeot J. Techniques de rééducation psycho-motrice: la methode Bon Départ et ses applications en education et rééducation. [Techniques of psychomotor re-education: The method Le Bon Départ and its applications in education and re-education]. Bull l'Inst Natl d'Orientation Prof1964; 2: 126–143.
21.
Masse F. Place de Le Bon Départ en rééducation psychomotrice. [Position of Le Bon Départ in psychomotor re-education]. Rev Neuropsychiatr Infant1966; 14: 287–296.
22.
Hoare D. Subtypes of developmental coordination disorder. Adapt Phys Act Q1994; 11: 158–169.
23.
Wright HC, Sugden DA. The nature of developmental coordination disorder: inter- and intragroup differences. Adapt Phys Act Q1996; 13: 357–371.
24.
Kaplan BJ, Wilson BN, Dewey D, Crawford SG. DCD may not be a discrete disorder. Hum Movement Sci1998; 17: 471–490.
25.
Van Dellen T, Vaessen W, Schoemaker MM. Clumsiness: definition and selection of subjects. In: Kalverboer AF ed. Developmental biopsychology: experimental and observational studies in children at risk. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990: 135–152.
26.
Wright HC, Sugden DA. A two step procedure for the identification of children with developmental coordination disorder in Singapore. Dev Med Child Neurol1996; 38: 1099–1105.
27.
Henderson SE, Sugden DA. Movement Assessment Battery for Children. Kent: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992.
28.
Leemrijse C, Meijer OG, Vermeer A, Lambregts B, Adèr HJ. Detecting individual change in children with mild to moderate motor impairment: the standard error of measurement of the Movement ABC. Clin Rehabil1999; 13: 420–429.
29.
Williams HG, Woollacott, MG, Ivry RB. Timing and motor control in clumsy children. J Motor Behav1992; 24: 165–172.
30.
Henderson L, Rose P, Henderson SE. Reaction time and movement time in children with a developmental coordination disorder. J Child Psychol Psychiatry1992; 33: 895–905.
31.
Wagenaar RC. Functional recovery after stroke. PhD thesis, VU University, Amsterdam, 1990.
32.
Sigmundsson H, Ingvaldsen, RP, Whiting HTA. Inter and intrasensory modality matching in children with hand-eye coordination problems: exploring the developmental lag hypothesis. Dev Med Child Neurol1997; 39: 790–796.
33.
Martini R, Polatajko HJ. Verbal self guidance as a treatment approach for children with developmental coordination disorder: A systematic replication study. Occup Ther J Res1999; 18: 157–181.
34.
Cunningham Amundson SJ, Crowe TK. Clinical applications of the standard error of measurement for occupational and physical therapists. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr1993; 12: 57–71.
35.
Ayres AJ. Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1988.
36.
Geuze RH. Variability of performance and adaptation to changing task demands in clumsy children. In: Kalverboer AF ed. Developmental biopsychology: experimental and observational studies in children at risk. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990: 207–222.
37.
Knyazeva M, Koeda T, Njiokiktjien C, Jonkman EJ, Kurganskaya M, De Sonneville L, Vildavsky V. EEG Coherence changes during finger tapping in acollosal and normal children: a study of inter- and intrahemispheric connectivity. Behav Brain Res1997; 89: 243–258.
38.
Henry FM. Variable and constant performance errors within a group of individuals. J Motor Behav1974; 6: 149–154.
39.
Ayres AJ. Sensory Integration and learning disorders. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1972.
40.
Fisher AG, Murray EA, Bundy AC. Sensory integration: theory and practice. Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis, 1991.
41.
Revie G, Larkin D. Task specific intervention with children reduces movement problems. Adapt Phys Act Q1993; 10: 29–41.
42.
Miyahara M, Möbs I. Developmental dyspraxia and developmental coordination disorder. Neuropsychol Rev1995; 5: 245–268.
