The aim of this study was to identify the correlation between mastery motivation and sensory processing difficulties among South Korean children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Ninety-nine children aged 4–7 years with DCD participated. The Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire was used to assess the mastery motivation of the children, and the Short Sensory Profile was used to assess the children’s sensory processing difficulties. All subjects showed lower mastery motivation and definite differences in sensory processing. Mastery motivation was significantly correlated with sensory processing (
The American Psychiatric Association (2013) diagnoses these children who have remarkably reduced coordination abilities, which lead to difficulties in daily life and poor academic achievement compared to typically developed children with the same chronological age, as having developmental coordination disorder (DCD) [
Recent studies have demonstrated that difficulties in sensory processing and integration, as well as in motor skills, may influence how children with DCD interact with their environments [
The function of sensory processing and integration is to facilitate the interpretation of sensory input from one’s body and the environment, leading to a meaningful and appropriate behavioral response [
In sensory integration theory, Ayres and Tickle described motivation as the desire or willingness to respond to a stimulus that has been registered or to ignore it. And internal motivation to seek out, experience, and master challenges is often lacking in the child with sensory integrative dysfunction [
Mastery motivation is a psychological force that stimulates a person to make focused, persistent, and independent attempts to solve a problem, acquire a skill, or complete a task that poses a moderate or strong challenge [
Many studies have indicated that DCD children have low motivations [
Therefore, the first purpose of this study was to investigate the difficulties in sensory processing and mastery motivation among South Korean children with DCD. The second objective was to explore the relationship between mastery motivation and sensory processing difficulty. The last goal was to investigate the impact of mastery motivation on sensory processing in children.
The population of children between ages four and seven years in the geographical area of trust was estimated to be 56,313 [
The study participants were 99 South Korean children aged 4–7 years who had DCD and attended a special day care center and rehabilitation clinic. All of the children were diagnosed with DCD by a pediatrician or developmental neurologist. DCD diagnosis was established based on 4 criteria described in the
The subjects (99) included 58 (58.6%) boys and 41 (40.6%) girls. Among these subjects, 43 (43.4%) were aged 48–59 months, 23 (23.2%) were aged 60–71 months, and 33 (33.4%) were aged 72–84 months (see Table
Subjects of the study (
Variable | Number (%) | |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 58 (58.6) |
Female | 41 (40.6) | |
Age (months) | 48–59 | 43 (43.4) |
60–71 | 23 (23.2) | |
72–84 | 33 (33.4) |
Occupational therapists assessed the children’s sensory processing level using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP) and mastery motivation using the Dimensions of Mastery Questionnaire (DMQ).
This instrument is a shorter version of the Sensory Profile, an instrument used for evaluating sensory processing abilities. The SSP is based on the report of a child’s main caregiver. It is comprised of 38 items that demonstrated the highest discriminative power of atypical sensory processing among all of the items from the longer version of the Sensory Profile. The seven sections of the SSP found in a normative sample are tactile sensitivity, test/smell sensitivity, movement sensitivity, underresponsive/seeks sensation, auditory filtering, low energy/weak, and visual/auditory sensitivity. The internal consistency of the sections within the scale ranged from 0.70 to 0.90 [
The DMQ assesses several aspects of adults’ and children’s perceptions of children’s mastery-related behaviors. The DMQ is one of several measurement techniques, including challenging structured tasks and semistructured play, developed to assess mastery motivation [
All data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistical version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). To test the first question (Do children with DCD have sensory processing difficulties?), a descriptive test was selected. To test question 2 (Do children with DCD have mastery motivation difficulties?), a descriptive test was selected. To test question 3 (Is there a relationship between reported mastery motivation difficulties and sensory processing difficulties?), Pearson’s correlation test was used. To test question 4 (Does mastery motivation affect sensory processing?), multiple linear regression was used. A significance level of
The total score of mastery motivation was 122.09. The object-oriented persistence scale score was 21.73, the social persistence/mastery motivation with adults scale score was 16.86, the social persistence/mastery motivation with children scale score was 16.02, the mastery pleasure scale score was 19.85, the negative reaction to failure in mastery situations scale score was 13.32, and the general competence compared to peers scale score was 12.69 (see Table
Mastery motivation of subjects (
Variable | |
---|---|
Object-oriented persistence scale | |
Gross motor persistence scale | |
Social persistence/mastery motivation with adults scale | |
Social persistence/mastery motivation with children scale | |
Mastery pleasure scale | |
Negative reaction to failure in mastery situations scale | |
General competence compared to peers scale | |
Mastery motivation |
All members of the sample group (100%) showed a definite difference in sensory processing. Among the children, 99 (99.0%) showed a definite difference in tactile sensitivity. In taste/smell sensitivity, 53 (53.5%) of the children showed a definite difference, 28 (28.3%) of the children showed typical performance, and 18 (18.2%) of the children showed a probable difference. In movement sensitivity, 89 (89.9%) of the children showed a definite difference, 6 (6.1%) of the children showed a probable difference, and 4 (4.0%) of the children showed a probable difference. In underresponsive/ seeks sensation, 88 (88.9%) of the children showed a definite difference, 6 (6.1%) of the children showed a probable difference, and 5 (5.1%) of the children showed typical performance. In auditory filtering, 97 (97.7%) of the children showed a definite difference. In low energy/weak, 69 (69.7%) of the children showed a definite difference, 20 (20.2%) of the children showed typical performance, and 10 (10.1%) of the children showed a probable difference. All members of the sample group (100%) showed a definite difference in visual/auditory sensitivity (Table
Sensory profile of subjects (
Variable | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Typical performance | Probable difference | Definite difference | ||
Tactile sensitivity | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.0) | 99 (99.0) | |
Taste/smell sensitivity | 28 (28.3) | 18 (18.2) | 53 (53.5) | |
Movement sensitivity | 4 (4.0) | 6 (6.1) | 89 (89.9) | |
Underresponsive/seeks sensation | 5 (5.1) | 6 (6.1) | 88 (88.9) | |
Auditory filtering | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.1) | 97 (97.9) | |
Low energy/weak | 20 (20.2) | 10 (10.1) | 69 (69.7) | |
Visual/auditory sensitivity | 3 (3.0) | 10 (10.1) | 86 (86.9) | |
Total | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 100 (100.0) |
When examining the correlations between mastery motivation and the sensory profile, mastery motivation was significantly correlated with tactile sensitivity (
Relationships between mastery motivation and sensory processing (
Object-oriented persistence scale | Gross motor persistence scale | Social persistence/mastery motivation with adults scale | Social persistence/mastery motivation with children scale | Mastery pleasure scale | Negative reaction to failure in mastery situations scale | General competence compared to peers scale | Mastery motivation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tactile sensitivity | −0.21 |
−0.19 | −0.26 |
−0.31 |
−0.18 | 0.38 |
−0.38 |
−0.24 |
Taste/smell sensitivity | −0.14 | −0.11 | −0.06 | −0.25 |
0.01 | 0.29 |
−0.26 |
−0.12 |
Movement sensitivity | −0.18 | −0.22 |
0.02 | −0.27 |
−0.04 | 0.48 |
−0.33 |
−0.15 |
Underresponsive/seeks sensation | −0.19 | −0.06 | 0.05 | −0.24 |
−0.03 | 0.49 |
−0.26 |
−0.08 |
Auditory filtering | −0.31 |
−0.22 |
0.02 | −0.40 |
−0.19 | 0.38 |
−0.40 |
−0.26 |
Low energy/weak | −0.30 |
−0.52 |
−0.16 | −0.22 |
−0.43 |
0.09 | −0.33 |
−0.41 |
Visual/auditory sensitivity | −0.26 |
−0.20 | −0.14 | −0.39 |
0.01 | 0.41 |
−0.21 |
−0.19 |
Sensory processing | −0.36 |
−0.35 |
−0.11 | −0.45 |
−0.22 |
0.51 |
−0.48 |
−0.34 |
To investigate the effect of mastery motivation on sensory processing, multiple linear regression analysis was performed for the full sample. The outcome variable for the model was the SSP total score, and the predictor variables were the object-oriented persistence scale, gross motor persistence scale, social persistence/mastery motivation with adults scale, social persistence/mastery motivation with children scale, mastery pleasure scale, negative reaction to failure in mastery situations scale, and general competence compared to peers scale. The model was significant at
Mastery motivation to predict sensory processing (
Variables | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients | Collinearity statistics | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
(Constant) | 87.486 | 11.977 | 7.304 | 0.001 | |||
Object-oriented persistence scale | 0.531 | 0.493 | 0.174 | 1.076 | 0.285 | 0.229 | 4.374 |
Gross motor persistence scale | -0.051 | 0.437 | -0.018 | -0.117 | 0.907 | 0.256 | 3.900 |
Social persistence/mastery motivation with adults scale | 0.292 | 0.623 | 0.041 | 0.468 | 0.641 | 0.792 | 1.262 |
Social persistence/mastery motivation with children scale | -0.646 | 0.437 | -0.159 | -1.477 | 0.143 | 0.520 | 1.922 |
Mastery pleasure scale | -0.762 | 0.517 | -0.195 | -1.475 | 0.144 | 0.343 | 2.913 |
Negative reaction to failure in mastery situations scale | 2.570 | 0.484 | 0.471 | 5.306 | 0.001 | 0.762 | 1.313 |
General competence compared to peers scale | -1.705 | 0.682 | -0.329 | -2.499 | 0.014 | 0.346 | 2.889 |
This study was conducted to assess mastery motivation and sensory processing, to investigate the relationship between mastery motivation and sensory processing, and to examine the effect of mastery motivation on sensory processing in South Korean children with DCD.
We used the Short Sensory Profile questionnaire, which measures children’s responses to sensory events in everyday life. All samples in this study showed a definite difference in the total score of the SSP. Allen and Casey [
In this study, the mean score for mastery motivation in children with DCD was 19.1, which is very low—only 1.1 points higher than the minimal total score of 18 [
The children with low mastery motivation tended to have low tactile sensitivity, difficulties in auditory filtering, “low energy/weak,” and sensory processing difficulties. Mastery motivation had a statistically significant effect on sensory processing in children with DCD (
Elements of mastery motivation had a significant influence on sensory processing. This is especially the case for negative reaction to failure in mastery situations (
The results of this study offer partial support for the inner drive component of the sensory integration (SI) approach and the theory of mastery motivation. The SI approach is often used for children with sensory processing difficulties. The theory suggests play activities and sensory-enhanced interaction as strategies for encouraging an adaptive response in children. In addition, the theory delineates activities that help children engage with sensory processing and with motor and planning skills [
The theory of mastery motivation posits that children with a high expectation of success develop preferences for sensory activities by choosing what they can do and what they feel is worthwhile. The theory suggests that children choose activities for which they are motivated and that engaging with activities offers children the opportunity to gain experience and become mature [
This study has particular significance as the first study to investigate the mastery motivation and sensory processing difficulties and to examine sensory processing skills based on mastery motivation in South Korea children with DCD. The results of the study have limited generalizability, as study participants were not recruited and sampled randomly. In addition, the assessment of mastery motivation was based on parent reports. A multidimensional assessment that includes both parent reports and investigator observations would improve accuracy and comprehensiveness.
The limit of this study was the failure to investigate dyslexia in children with DCD. According to the Canadian census, 23% of children had DCD symptoms and 22% of them had both DCD and dyslexia [
In conclusion, sensory processing difficulties and lack of mastery motivation were identified among children with DCD in South Korea. And the children with high mastery motivation show fewer difficulties in sensory processing. Understanding the effects of mastery motivation on sensory processing in children with DCD is an important part of efforts to improve sensory processing. In particular, it is recommended to enhance DCD children’s sensory processing through improved attitudes and perceptions of activities, such as a negative reaction to failure and comparison of abilities with those of peers.
The data used to support the findings of this study are restricted in order to protect subjects.
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
This study was supported by research funds from Honam University (2016[2016-0166]).