A plain-language look at new evidence, written for parents trying to make sense of a dyspraxia or developmental coordination disorder (DCD) diagnosis and for therapists who want the research landscape behind individualized care. The centerpiece is a 2026 systematic review that asked a deceptively simple question (does DCD split into distinct subtypes?) and pooled the available studies to answer it. We explain what it found, why the answer matters for how care is planned, and where the evidence still needs more work.
Dyspraxia, known clinically as developmental coordination disorder or DCD, is one of the more heterogeneous conditions in pediatric practice. Two children with the same label can look quite different: one struggles most with handwriting and other fine-motor tasks, another with balance and catching a ball, another with the timing and sequencing of movement, and many with some combination of all three. For decades, researchers have wondered whether that variety hides a set of distinct subtypes, recognizable “kinds” of dyspraxia that might each call for a different approach. A 2026 systematic review set out to test that idea directly, by gathering the studies that tried to sort children with DCD into statistical clusters and asking whether consistent subtypes actually emerge.
Dyspraxia looks different from child to child, which naturally raises the question: are there separate “types” of dyspraxia? Researchers have been trying to answer that for years. A new 2026 review gathered those attempts together to see whether the science actually supports distinct categories or something simpler.
The review, led by Evi Verbecque and colleagues and published in the European Journal of Pediatrics, followed a registered protocol and searched five major databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo) for studies that used statistical clustering to identify subtypes in children (ages 0 to 18) with DCD. Out of 1,719 records screened, just ten studies met the bar. The team appraised each study's quality with an adapted Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and rated the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. Rather than asking whether any treatment works, the review asked a more foundational question: when you analyze the data, do children with DCD reliably fall into the same discrete groups from one study to the next?
This wasn't a new study of new children. The researchers gathered every study they could find that tried to sort children with DCD into groups using statistics (only ten existed that fit) and looked at whether those groups lined up across studies. They also graded how trustworthy the evidence was, so the conclusion comes with an honest confidence level attached.
Across the ten studies, no consistent set of discrete subtypes emerged. The clusters that individual studies produced didn't reliably reproduce from one study to the next, and where patterns did appear, they tended to reflect how severe or pervasive a child's difficulties were rather than a qualitatively different “kind” of DCD. The review's authors conclude that, on current evidence, DCD is better understood as a spectrum of severity, with children spread along a continuum from milder to more pervasive coordination difficulties, than as a tidy set of distinct categories. They also note that this rests on a small and varied evidence base, and call for future research that focuses specifically on subtyping children's primary motor symptoms.
The short version: when researchers pooled the studies, they didn't find clear, repeatable “types” of dyspraxia. Instead, children seem to differ mostly by how much their coordination is affected, a sliding scale rather than separate boxes. It's a meaningful shift in how the condition is described.
It's tempting to read “no subtypes” as a disappointing result, as if the research came up empty. But the more useful way to read it is as a reframe. If dyspraxia were made of distinct subtypes, the logical next step would be to match each child to a category and apply a category-specific protocol. A spectrum implies something different and, arguably, more practical: care should be built around each child's specific profile and severity (which skills are affected, how much, and how those difficulties show up in daily life) rather than around a label-within-the-label. In other words, the finding lands squarely behind individualized, whole-child assessment, which is how good coordination-focused therapy already tends to work.
Here's the takeaway that actually helps: because dyspraxia behaves more like a spectrum than a set of categories, the most useful plan is one built around your specific child, the exact tasks they find hard and how much support they need, rather than a one-size-fits-a-subtype template. That's a point in favor of individualized therapy, not against it.
A few grounded takeaways to bring into conversations with your child's therapy team:
For occupational, physical, and speech therapists, this review offers a clear, evidence-informed rationale for resisting rigid subtyping and leaning into individualized, profile-based assessment. Because the data don't support treating DCD as a set of discrete categories, matching a child to a “subtype protocol” isn't well supported; building around each child's specific pattern and severity is. The review's certainty rating is honest about its limits (this is a small evidence base), but the direction it points, spectrum over categories, is consistent across the studies that exist.
It's worth noting that PPT4Kids' existing dyspraxia programming is already built around exactly this individualized, whole-child model: occupational, speech, and physical therapy coordinated around each child's specific mix of fine-motor, gross-motor, coordination, and speech-planning needs, with plans tailored to the child rather than to a category. That structural alignment, individualized and multidisciplinary care matched to a child's profile and severity is worth pointing out to families, though this specific review did not evaluate any particular clinic's program.
For the clinical side of your team: this research supports building therapy around your child's individual profile and severity rather than slotting them into a subtype. That's already how strong, multidisciplinary dyspraxia care works, so it's less a change of course than a research-backed confirmation of the individualized approach.
This is a careful review, but it rests on a thin and uneven base: only ten studies met criteria out of more than 1,700 screened, and those studies varied in who they included and in how they defined and measured clusters. “No consistent subtypes” is partly a statement about the current evidence (the studies were too few and too varied to establish stable categories) rather than proof that meaningful subtypes could never exist. The authors are explicit that the certainty of the evidence is limited, and they call for future work that subtypes children's primary motor symptoms specifically, using stronger and more consistent methods. In short: the spectrum view is the best reading of the evidence we have, but the question isn't fully closed.
This is a genuinely useful review, but it's built on only ten studies, so its conclusion is best read as “the evidence so far points to a spectrum” rather than “subtypes definitely don't exist.” The researchers say as much themselves, the kind of honesty that makes a study more trustworthy on the parts it is confident about.
For parents and teachers, these are common signs of dyspraxia (DCD) worth raising with your child's pediatrician or a pediatric therapist:
Dyspraxia often overlaps with attention, language, and sensory differences, so a comprehensive evaluation is typically the most useful next step rather than assuming any single cause.
This 2026 review found no consistent, discrete subtypes of DCD across the available studies. The evidence points toward a spectrum of severity rather than separate categories, though the authors note the evidence base is still small.
Yes. “Dyspraxia” and “developmental coordination disorder” are commonly used to describe the same condition: difficulty planning and coordinating movement that isn't explained by another medical condition.
No. In a sense it means the opposite. Children differ mainly by how much, and which, skills are affected, along a continuum, which is exactly why individualized assessment matters more than a category.
No. It's a review of how DCD is categorized, not of treatment effectiveness. It supports individualized care but doesn't rank or evaluate specific therapies.
Care is typically multidisciplinary: occupational therapy for fine-motor and daily-living skills, physical therapy for coordination and gross-motor skills, and speech therapy where speech planning is affected, tailored to each child's profile.
Progressive Pediatric Therapy supports children with dyspraxia and developmental coordination disorder across Palm Beach County, Lake Worth, and Boca Raton, with an approach that already reflects what this research points toward: individualized, whole-child care matched to each child's specific profile and severity rather than a one-size-fits-all category, delivered through collaborative occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy. If you'd like to understand more about how coordination-focused therapy works, or want to talk through what an evaluation would look like, learn more about our dyspraxia therapy program or contact us to schedule an evaluation.
Primary study, retrieved from PubMed: Verbecque E, Lust JM, Smits-Engelsman B. Subtypes in developmental coordination disorder: what do we know so far? A systematic review. Eur J Pediatr. 2026 Jun 20;185(7):510. PMID: 42322424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-026-07180-2
We empower children, families, and the community to learn, grow, and celebrate every child's unique abilities.
Quick Links
Contact Details
Call/Text: 561-376-2573 | 561-918-0190
Fax: 561-218-4939
VIP Concierge: 561-696-7247
Clinic Locations
Site by Spearlance
