BACKGROUND. The Do–Eat was developed to evaluate daily task performance abilities among children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). This study investigated the tool’s reliability and validity. METHOD. Participants were 59 children ages 5 to 6.5 years; 30 children diagnosed with DCD according to the DSM–IV–TR; and a control group of 29 children, who were matched for age, gender, and sociodemographic background. RESULTS. Both the Do–Eat and the accompanying Parent Questionnaire yielded high internal consistency (αs = .89–.93). Construct validity was demonstrated by significant between-group differences on the Do-Eat ( t [57] = 14.09, p < .001) and the Parent Questionnaire ( t [57] = 3.64, p < .001). Significant correlations between children’s scores on the sensory–motor component of the Do–Eat and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children final score confirmed concurrent validity ( r = −.86, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS. Results suggest that the Do–Eat is a reliable, valid tool for identifying children at risk for DCD.

•Assessment tools have progressed from measuring specific components, to more comprehensive assessments.•Performance-based tools, has the potential to include an EF index as part of the test scoring.•Most researchers either chose short versions of the assessment tools to address the subjects' attentional capacities.•Using more than one evaluation method enabled to draw a more precise picture of the function.

Background: Cognition affects poststroke recovery, but meta-analyses of cognition have not yet provided a comparison of observational and intervention evidence. Objective: To describe the trajectory of poststroke cognition and the factors that moderate it across intervention and observational cohorts. Methods: Six databases were searched up to January 2020. Studies describing quantitative changes in cognition in adults poststroke were included. Interventions were classified into pharmacological, therapist-led, nonroutine/alternative, and usual care. Summary estimates were compared via hierarchical mixed-effects models. Age, recovery stage, stroke etiology, cognitive domain targeted in studies, and intervention types were investigated as moderators of cognition. Recovery stage and intervention were further analyzed in a multiplicative metaregression model. Results: A total of 43 intervention trials and 79 observation cohorts involving 28 222 stroke participants were included. Heterogeneity was significant (τ² = 0.09; CI = 0.01-0.21, P < .001) with no evidence of publication bias. Cognitive recovery was greater in intervention trials ( g = 0.47; CI = 0.37-0.58) than observational cohorts ( g = 0.28; CI = 0.20-0.36) across all moderators analyzed. Nonroutine/alternative and pharmacological trials achieved the best overall results ( g = 0.57, CI = 0.42-0.73, and g = 0.52, CI = 0.30-0.74, respectively), followed by therapist-led ( g = 0.46; CI = 0.17-0.74), and usual care ( g = 0.28; CI = 0.11-0.45) interventions. Medium recovery effects (ie, g ≥ 0.5) were observed in examining first-ever stroke, executive function, visuo-perceptual, consciousness, and psychomotor skills, 61 to 180 days poststroke, in participants aged 65 to 70 years. Conclusion: Cognitive recovery is possible using different controlled interventions in all recovery stages, with smaller benefits ≥2 years poststroke. Longer-term studies are needed to determine the role of nonroutine/alternative therapies and the association between cognitive recovery and performance in everyday activities.