Overall, 58% of participants reported awareness of DCD and 42% of participants noted they had diagnosed or treated patients with DCD (see Table 2). Notably, more clinicians were familiar with the term “Dyspraxia” (84%). With respect to treatment, more clinicians reported experience with Dyspraxia (45%) than the equivalent term of DCD on a descriptive level. These proportions were all descriptively lower than reported awareness of ADHD (96%) and treatment experience with ADHD (75%).

There were significant effects of clinical profession on reported expertise about DCD [F(4, 326) = 42.90, p < .001, η = 0.59] and reported expertise about ADHD [F(4, 338) = 19.49, p < .001, η = 0.43]. Bonferroni’s post hoc test revealed the differences in reported expertise of ADHD were driven by significantly less expertise among physical therapists (M = 2.49, SD = 0.74, 95% CI [2.29, 2.69]) compared to all other groups of practitioners. For DCD expertise, post hoc tests showed that psychotherapists (M = 1.82, SD = 1.04, 95% CI [1.63, 2.00]) and psychiatrists (M = 1.88, SD = 1.26, 95% CI [1.20, 2.55]) self-reported significantly lower expertise than all other groups.

Regarding treatment, there were significant effects of clinical profession on treatment frequency with DCD [F(4, 325) = 52.22, p < .001, η = 0.63] and ADHD [F(4, 338) = 20.52, p < .001, η = 0.44] patients. Furthermore, there were differences in the estimated persistence of DCD into adulthood by occupation [F(4, 305) = 4.14, p = .003, η = 0.05], but not for ADHD (p > .05). Bonferroni comparisons revealed the difference in reported relevance of DCD in adulthood was driven by a significant difference between psychotherapists (M = 3.06, SD = 0.89, 95% CI [2.89, 3.23]) and physical therapists (M = 3.57, SD = 0.84, 95% CI [3.33, 3.80]). The relevance of several symptom domains also differed by occupational group, including the social domain [F(4, 294) = 2.08, p = .026, η = 0.04] for DCD driven by higher ratings from psychiatrists (M = 3.82, SD = 0.60, 95% CI [3.41, 4.22]) versus all groups aside from general practitioners. For ADHD, differences by occupation were present for the social symptom domain [F(4, 333) = 4.89, p = .001, η = 0.06] driven by a significant difference between occupational therapists (M = 4.05, SD = 0.59, 95% CI [3.93, 4.17]) versus psychotherapists (M = 3.79, SD = 0.53, 95% CI [3.69, 3.88]) and physical therapists (M = 3.75, SD = 0.69, 95% CI [3.55, 3.94]), and behavioral domains [F(4, 329) = 6.95, p < .001, η = 0.08] where significant differences were present for most groups aside from psychiatrists.

Familiarity significantly differed by community for ADHD [t(342) = 4.47, p < .001, 95% CI (0.36, 0.79)], such that German-speaking professionals reported more expertise (M = 3.47, SD = 0.78) about ADHD than English-speaking professionals (M = 2.89, SD = 1.09). However, there were no significant differences between communities for self-reported experience treating ADHD.

There were significant differences by community for reported relevance of specific features of DCD and ADHD. Regarding DCD, the English-speaking professionals estimated a higher persistence into adulthood (M = 3.59, SD = 0.92; German-speaking clinicians: M = 3.09, SD = 0.79; t(309) = 4.19, p < .001; 95% CI [0.26, 0.73], corrected values), social relevance (M = 3.38, SD = 0.84; German-speaking clinicians: M = 2.97, SD = 0.77; t(301) = 3.70, p < .001; 95% CI [0.19, 0.63], corrected values), emotional relevance (M = 3.37, SD = 0.86; German-speaking clinicians: M = 3.00, SD = 0.77; t(301) = 3.32, p = .001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.60], corrected values), and physical relevance (M = 4.57, SD = 0.58; German-speaking clinicians: M = 3.84, SD = 0.89; t(304) = 8.23, p < .001, 95% CI [0.56, 0.91], corrected values).

In the case vignette, 123 out of 346 participants, or 35.5% of the entire sample correctly identified a potential diagnosis of DCD or used a diagnostic label such as “Dyspraxia” or ICD-10 terminology, such as “Specific Disorder of Motor Function.” Among these participants, n = 10 (8.1%) proposed a diagnosis of “Clumsy Child Syndrome” for the case vignette, which, while not a current term, was coded as correct due to it being used for DCD prior to international consensus in 1994 (Polatajko et al., 1995). An additional n = 98 or 28.3% of participants indicated a response that was not specific enough, but on the right track toward DCD, such as “specific learning difficulties,” “fine motor skill delay,” “coordination problem,” and/or included a main diagnosis of ADHD/ADD alongside DCD, instead of the differential diagnosis. Furthermore, 28% correctly reported the need to screen for ADHD/ADD as the main differential diagnosis, and 61% provided treatment recommendations in line with guidelines from Blank et al. (2019), such as task-oriented or process-oriented approaches, specific motor skill training, and/or CO-OP. Correct treatment recommendations could also include referral to, or collaboration with, a physical or occupational therapist, additional psychomotor screening, and/or further assessment or specific motor skills.

Prevalence estimates for DCD and ADHD significantly differed by occupation. For DCD, psychiatrists (M = 4.93, SD = 5.63), psychotherapists (M = 6.83, SD = 8.51), and general practitioners (M = 8.34, SD = 7.71) reported the lowest prevalence rates, while physical therapists (M = 14.94, SD = 11.86) and occupational therapists (M = 18.70, SD = 16.70) reported the highest prevalence estimates [(F(4, 253) = 12.73, p < .001, η = 0.41],. Similarly, estimates of ADHD prevalence were highest among occupational therapists (M = 18.24, SD = 2.17) and lowest among psychiatrists (M = 5.80, SD = 1.37) [F(4, 273) = 10.70, p < .001, η = 0.37].

Exploratory analyses were conducted for reported difficulty of treatment, which differed by occupation for DCD [F(4, 305) = 4.25, p = .002, η = 0.23] but not for ADHD (p > .05). Bonferroni’s post hoc test revealed the effect of difficulty treating DCD was driven by contrasts between occupational therapists who reported more difficulties (M = 3.08; SD = 0.74) than psychotherapists (M = 2.76, SD = 0.75) and general practitioners (M = 2.67, SD = 0.74).

Finally, a total of n = 41 participants reported being familiar with a non-existent condition we called “Specific Motor Flexibility Disorder.” In addition, n = 37 reported treating this non-existent condition. Participants who reported familiarity with the non-existent condition also reported having greater expertise on DCD (M = 3.45, SD = 1.04) than respondents who did not report being familiar with the fake condition (M = 2.58, SD = 1.26; t(59.6) = 4.92, p < .001, CI[0.52, 1.22]). Furthermore, they reported treating DCD more frequently (M = 2.98, SD = 1.02) than participants who did not report knowing the non-existent disorder (M = 2.21, SD = 1.18; t(58) = 4.45, p < .001, CI[0.52, 1.22]). While there are small discrepancies in reports by the participants who indicated familiarity with a non-existent condition, we ultimately included them in the main analyses given their reported expertise and, primarily, that the sham condition may not have been discernable enough from other conditions (e.g., stereotypic movement disorder).