Playgrounds Fall Short for Children With Coordination Disorder, Parents Report

For most children, a trip to the playground is pure joy: the rush of a steep slide, the challenge of monkey bars, the thrill of swinging higher than the fence. But for children with developmental coordination disorder, a neurodevelopmental condition affecting roughly 5 to 6 percent of schoolchildren, the same equipment that delights their peers can become a landscape of frustration and exclusion. A new study from Switzerland, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, offers one of the first systematic looks at how these children experience public playgrounds, and the findings reveal a striking paradox: playgrounds are deeply valued by families, yet they routinely fall short in the domains that matter most for a child’s sense of capability.

The research, conducted by Anika Stoffel, Johanna Linimayr, and Christina Schulze of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, surveyed 35 parents of children aged 4 to 7 with a confirmed diagnosis of developmental coordination disorder, commonly abbreviated as DCD. Families lived across eight regions of German-speaking Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and each parent evaluated the playground their child used most frequently. The children, whose average age was 6.0 years, were predominantly boys, and more than half showed impairments in gross motor function. Eight parents reported common comorbidities, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disability, Tourette syndrome, and vestibular disorder, reflecting the broader clinical reality that DCD rarely appears in isolation.

The study’s conceptual backbone is a framework of occupational wellbeing developed by Saraswati and colleagues, which breaks a child’s experience of meaningful activity into five domains: competence, autonomy, contentment and pleasure, identity, and belonging. In playground terms, competence means mastering the climb up a lookout tower or balancing across a beam; autonomy means freely choosing what and with whom to play; contentment describes the deep immersion of uninterrupted play; identity reflects a child’s sense of self built on strengths and interests; and belonging captures the experience of connecting with peers. The researchers paired this wellbeing framework with the concept of usability, defined as the ability to navigate and interact with an environment on comparable terms with others, always from the user’s own perspective rather than against official design standards.

Because no existing German-language instrument could capture both constructs, the team built a custom questionnaire, refining it through panels of researchers, occupational therapists, and mothers of young children. Parents rated statements on five-point Likert scales covering everything from sensory stimulation to equipment accessibility, and they added open-ended comments at the end. The data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS, an approach the authors acknowledge was appropriate given the small, exploratory sample. Recruitment ran through 120 pediatric occupational therapy practices, of which 23 agreed to distribute survey materials, with an extension through a Swiss parent counseling organization’s social media channels after the initial four-week window produced too few responses.

The headline finding is unambiguous: parents overwhelmingly value playgrounds. Ninety-four percent agreed or strongly agreed that the playground is an important and valuable play area for their child, and 88 percent endorsed the idea that playgrounds should stimulate multiple senses. Eighty-three percent agreed that diverse children can play according to their own abilities, and 80 percent said versatile equipment that can be used in many ways helps their child. Most families lived within a kilometer of their favorite playground, children spent an average of 72 minutes per visit, and 77 percent of the playgrounds were rated attractive or very attractive. On the surface, the person-environment fit appears remarkably good.

Beneath that positive surface, however, the wellbeing data tell a more complicated story. While autonomy scored high, with a median of 4.5, and contentment and pleasure reached a median of 4, with 89 percent of parents reporting their child has fun almost always or often, the domain of competence exposed the sharpest limitations. Only 34 percent of parents said their child frequently seeks out motor challenges, and exactly half reported that their child could not consistently master playground risks without help. The activities children most wanted to do, climbing (66 percent) and swinging (54 percent), were precisely the activities most often restricted: 54 percent of parents said balancing was difficult, 42 percent flagged climbing, 38 percent monkey bars, and 32 percent swinging. In other words, the very equipment that draws children to playgrounds is where children with DCD hit a wall.

This contradiction between desire and capability carries real clinical weight. Children with DCD are already at elevated risk of anxiety, depression, low self-efficacy, and poor quality of life, and repeated experiences of failure in a public, peer-visible setting can reinforce motor anxiety and learned helplessness. At the same time, risky play is a documented motivator for physical activity and health. The authors argue that playgrounds must therefore strike a delicate balance: offering graduated challenges that invite children to take the next step in mastering motor skills at different levels, without excluding those who are not yet ready. Equipment with multiple difficulty levels, generous handrails, wide platforms, and surfaces that remain safe in all weather emerged from parents’ comments as concrete design priorities.

The domain of belonging showed similarly mixed results. Seventy-one percent of parents said their child could play easily with other children, and the overall belonging score reached a median of 4. Yet responses about positive affirmation from peers spanned the full range from 1 to 5, and among the five children who faced social difficulties, outright social isolation was reported in two cases. Qualitative comments emphasized that keeping up with peers was the key to inclusion in parents’ eyes. The authors note this is more optimistic than earlier studies describing solitary play tendencies in DCD, but they caution that subtle peer dynamics may still reinforce isolation in children already vulnerable to negative self-appraisal. They also raise an intriguing possibility: children may be quietly adapting their own play styles and creating their own places on the playground in ways parents cannot observe, meaning some of the apparent fit may reflect children’s hidden agency rather than genuinely inclusive design.

The study has clear limitations. The self-developed questionnaire was not statistically validated, the sample of 35 is small and purposively recruited, potentially overrepresenting highly engaged parents, and there was no comparison group of typically developing children. Crucially, the children’s own voices are absent; parents served as proxy informants, and prior research suggests adult perceptions of children’s play choices may diverge from children’s lived experiences. The authors call for future work incorporating direct child reports, observational data, and universal design principles to build playgrounds that work for all children from the outset.

Even so, the implications are immediate. For occupational therapists, parents are valuable informants when evaluating a child’s competence and wellbeing in natural settings, and the five-domain framework offers a structured lens for tailoring interventions to playground participation. For planners and communities, the message is that accessibility is not just about ramps for wheelchairs; it is about whether a child with coordination difficulties can climb, swing, and balance alongside friends without help. Playgrounds, the study concludes, are genuinely important places where children with DCD experience autonomy, joy, and connection, but realizing their full inclusive potential will require design that treats the full spectrum of motor ability as a core requirement rather than an afterthought.

Subject of Research: Playground usability and occupational wellbeing in children with developmental coordination disorder

Article Title: Occupational wellbeing on playgrounds: Parents’ views on children with coordination disorder

Article References: Stoffel, A., Linimayr, J., & Schulze, C. (2025). Occupational wellbeing on playgrounds: Parents’ views on children with coordination disorder. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 32(1), Article 2526417. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2025.2526417

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2025.2526417

Keywords: developmental coordination disorder, playgrounds, occupational wellbeing, inclusive design, parent perspectives, child development, motor skills, occupational therapy, usability, social participation, Switzerland, pediatric health