Next Article in Journal
“I Sit Here Feeling the Beauty” Together with Nature—Children’s Knowledge in the Nature Kindergarten
Previous Article in Journal
Software Development Projects as a Way for Multidisciplinary Soft and Future Skills Education
Previous Article in Special Issue
Professional Teaching Competence Perceived by Portuguese Students of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences in Gymnastic Disciplines
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/educsci15101372
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Use of Powered Devices to Support Autonomous Mobility in Children with Motor Disability Attending Early Childhood Intervention: Implications for Physical Education and School Inclusion

by
Marina Perelló-Díez
1,
Jesús Vicente Ruiz-Omeñaca
2,
María Ángeles Valdemoros-San-Emeterio
2 and
Berta Paz-Lourido
1,*
1
Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, IRIE, University of the Balearic Islands, 07122 Palma, Spain
2
Department of Education Sciences, University of La Rioja, 26006 Logrono, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(10), 1372; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101372
Submission received: 29 July 2025 / Revised: 23 September 2025 / Accepted: 24 September 2025 / Published: 15 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exploring Teaching and Learning in Physical Education and Sport)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Mobility in children with motor disabilities is critical to their quality of life because it enhances participation and social inclusion in school and community settings. Recently, early childhood intervention programs have begun incorporating powered mobility devices (PMDs) to promote children’s autonomy at an earlier age than before. This study aimed to review the research on PMDs and highlight the implications for physical education and inclusion. Guided by PRISMA recommendations for scoping reviews, a synthesis of the findings from 46 articles published between 2010 and 2025 was conducted. Results indicate that the increasing use of these devices aligns with an emerging shift in professional perspectives toward technology-assisted mobility to improve participation. However, several factors influence the success of PMD implementation, including device type, children’s health status, and social, family, environmental, and attitudinal conditions. This shift presents both opportunities and challenges for schools. It is essential for physical education teachers to remain updated on innovations in this field, such as modified ride-on cars, and to strengthen collaboration between schools and early childhood intervention services to overcome physical, social, and attitudinal barriers to inclusion.

1. Introduction

Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) refers to a set of interventions aimed at children aged 0 to 6 years, their families, and their social environment. ECI is designed for children with developmental disorders or who are at risk of developing them and their families, enhancing personal development and strengthening family skills (Guralnick, 2020). Its primary goal is to detect and address any circumstances that may affect their overall development at an early stage (Tollan et al., 2023; Paz-Lourido & Hervás-Torres, 2025). Professional support is crucial for family well-being and quality of life (Marope & Kaga, 2015). Therefore, ECI services should facilitate and enhance the child’s overall development, plan and foster social inclusion, and develop capacity-building and parental skills strategies.
Over the past few decades, the conceptualization of ECI has shifted away from a biomedical paradigm centered on children’s deficits toward family-centered participatory approaches (García-Ventura et al., 2023). The International Classification of Functioning (ICF), developed by the World Health Organization in 2001, provides a theoretical framework for understanding and directing interventions in the field of disability (World Health Organization, 2001). The ICF considers not only an individual’s health conditions, but also contextual factors that can be modified to facilitate social participation. In the version for children, it emphasizes children’s capacities and promotes their autonomy and inclusion (World Health Organization, 2011).
The management of children with motor disabilities has been debated for decades (Wiart & Darrah, 2002), influencing the use of powered mobility devices (PMDs). Initially, PMDs were only recommended after all possibilities for improving children’s motor skills had been exhausted, a process that could take several years. PMDs generally include electric-powered wheelchairs (EPWs), powered scooters, and standers. Introducing them early may enhance movement effectiveness when health conditions limit mobility, thereby facilitating children’s social participation. Recent frameworks, such as the “On Time Mobility Framework” (Sabet et al., 2022), encourage early PMD access for children with motor disabilities. Independent exploration of the environment has a powerful impact on all children, and PMDs can support this ability. Recent frameworks, such as the “On Time Mobility Framework” (Sabet et al., 2022), encourage early access to PMDs to children with motor disabilities. This is because the ability to explore the surrounding environment independently and take the initiative has a powerful impact on children with or without disability, and PMDs can promote this ability.
ECI services are typically offered to children aged 0–6 in multidisciplinary centers as well as in community settings, including homes. Although some of these children are enrolled in special education institutions, there is an increasing emphasis on their inclusion in mainstream schools (Drudy & Kinsella, 2009). In this context, physical literacy and fundamental movement skills are key milestones in motor development during the later preschool and early primary school years, and many countries include them in their physical education curricula (Buelvas Girón et al., 2025). Psychomotor skills are essential for learning, as they form the basis for body scheme movements and visual-motor coordination. However, they are also considered a holistic experience that promotes inclusion, active participation, and enjoyment through body movement, emotional expression, and the development of autonomy (Rojo-Ramos et al., 2022). Psychomotor activities enrich connectivity between diverse motor and sensory brain areas, enhancing the overall brain performance (Bueno, 2017). This appears to be connected to the secretion of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein that promotes neurogenesis and increases synaptic plasticity, thereby strengthening neuronal connections (Guillem & Bueno, 2019). Conversely, a lack of mobility hinders participation in play environments, which are essential for development and a source of motivation that triggers new learning (Gray, 2011; Bornstein et al., 2013). According to the so-called cycle of deprivation (Nisbet, 2002), a reduction in opportunities for play and exploration leads to a reduction in stimuli, which compromises children’s experience. This results in a delay that causes frustration, reduces motivation and confidence, which negatively affects opportunities for play and exploration.
The importance of including children with motor disability in physical education lies in the fact that childhood is considered a critical or sensitive period of development with high plasticity. At this stage, the brain is greatly influenced by environmental stimuli and by the individual’s experience. Therefore, providing the right stimuli can modify its functioning (Martínez-Morga et al., 2016; Kolb et al., 2017). In this context, environmental enrichment (Morgan et al., 2021) involves increasing the variety and quantity of experiences in one or more of the motor, cognitive, sensory, or social aspects of the child’s environment, with the aim of promoting learning through everyday activities (Morgan et al., 2021; Ball et al., 2019). As far as motor learning is concerned, the generation of neural connectivity patterns, through which this learning materializes, requires the implementation of a variety of variants of the same motor pattern. It is essential that children are supported in finding spaces for exploration and experimentation of their motor behaviors (Mannino & Robazza, 2018).
Inclusive physical education guarantees the participation of all students and overcomes the limitations of the motor approach. It contributes to improving the emotional and physical well-being (Cedeño-Jama & Rodríguez-Zambrano, 2024; Proenza-Pupo, 2020). Despite physical education being promoted as a key setting for facilitating inclusion in schools, research has shown that many children with motor disabilities are often excluded from physical education (Tarantino & Neville, 2023), missing out on its crucial role in shaping a sense of belonging and inclusiveness in childhood (García et al., 2020). Previous research also highlights the challenges of transitioning from pre-school to primary education for children with disability and their families, which can persist over time (Janus et al., 2008; Tithi et al., 2022). Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, and self-efficacy, as well as the broader school context in which they work, may hinder the inclusion of these children (Obrusnikova, 2008; Tarantino & Neville, 2023).
The evolution of multidisciplinary interventions in ECI and the incorporation of PMDs at an early age in children with motor disabilities affect all areas of their participation, including schools. These developments require further investigation.

2. Materials and Methods

Given the novelty of this topic, a scoping review was selected as the most appropriate methodology. The objectives of this study were twofold: (1) to collect and synthesize existing scientific literature on the use of PMDs in early interventions and (2) to identify gaps in knowledge and provide preliminary recommendations for schools. The rationale for the search strategy and critical appraisal was to locate studies related to the early prescription and use of PMDs, focusing on potential implications for school inclusion and physical education. This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) guidelines. The initial approach to the phenomenon was structured using the PICO framework (Table 1). Subsequently, the SPIDER framework (Table 2) complemented the search strategy to focus on qualitative studies, which were particularly relevant to this study as they incorporated the perspectives of families and early intervention professionals. Keywords were transformed into DeCS descriptors (2025). Searches were carried out in the EBSCOhost metasearch engine, PubMed, and IBECS databases, as well as the PEDro review database, with appropriate adaptations for each database. A snowball search was also conducted to identify additional records that could improve understanding and enrich the state of the art. The publication period was limited to 2010–2025 to ensure access to the most recent publications in both English and Spanish.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) Population: children with disabilities or motor impairments under the age of five (preschool age); (b) Intervention or phenomenon of interest: use of any type of powered mobility device; and (c) Types of records: qualitative and quantitative studies, reviews, or documents reporting on device design or testing. Exclusion criteria included studies involving adults or children over five years of age and records concerning non-powered mobility devices.
Descriptors and free-text terms were combined using the Boolean operators AND and OR, applying AND between conceptual levels and OR between synonyms to conduct a comprehensive search. The search equations are presented in Table 3.

3. Results

The compilation process began by removing duplicate records (n = 597) and excluding studies outside the scope of this review based on their titles and abstracts (n = 422). The remaining articles then underwent an in-depth evaluation. Of these, 129 were excluded for the following reasons: full-text articles that did not match the purpose of this review in terms of topic, population, or intervention (n = 92); articles with insufficient information (n = 12); records consisting of conference abstracts, thesis reviews, or commentaries not relevant to this study (n = 19); and records that could not be retrieved (n = 6). The remaining 46 articles were included in the final scoping review (Figure 1).
This section presents a synthesis of the results divided into subsections to illustrate the state of the art regarding powered mobility devices highlighting elements particularly relevant for inclusion in schools.

3.1. Types of Devices

In addition to the well-known electric-powered wheelchairs (EPWs), which are available in multiple models, there are various powered mobility devices (PMDs) specifically designed to be child-friendly. These are typically prescribed for children with severe motor impairments or inefficient mobility due to developmental delays (Livingstone & Paleg, 2014; Rosen et al., 2018). Particular attention should be given to modified ride-on cars (MROCs). In 2006, the program Go Baby Go! was founded at the University of Delaware (USA) to modify and adapt conventional Powered Kids’ Electric Vehicles (PKEVs)—commercially available in toy stores—into MROCs. Adaptations included seating supports and restraints, as well as the installation of a joystick to enable the child to operate the vehicle (Huang & Galloway, 2012; Aceros & Lundy, 2020). Another adaptation involved placing a button under the seat to encourage children to stand up and activate the car (Logan et al., 2017). In both cases, children could initiate movement themselves, thereby increasing their sense of control and mobility (Rosen et al., 2018).
Go Baby Go! has become an open community initiative implemented in multiple regions (Martin & Dischino, 2017). It is estimated that more than 5000 cars have been adapted worldwide (Logan et al., 2019), with feasibility studies launched in countries such as Colombia and Brazil. In Spain, recent initiatives are also underway (Coello-Villalón et al., 2025; Palomo-Carrión et al., 2024). Internationally marketed devices include the Permobil Mini-Explorer® (Plummer et al., 2020), the Wizzy Bug®, the Bugzu by Meru® (Field & Livingstone, 2022), and the Wild Thing by Sealth Products® (Pritchard-Wiart et al., 2019). Another study explored the suitability of the WeeBot®, a device controlled by the child’s weight displacement (Stansfield et al., 2018). Finally, a more complex device—an electric train for preschoolers—has also been developed (Sanders, 2017).

3.2. Perceived Benefits and Opportunities

The children included in the selected studies presented mobility limitations and varying degrees of impairment, including complex medical conditions. This aligns with findings identifying these children as the main beneficiaries of PMDs (Logan et al., 2016; Sloane et al., 2023). The review highlights benefits for children’s social, language, and cognitive development (Guerette et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2012; Livingstone & Field, 2014; Weinstein et al., 2018; Logan et al., 2014; Cheung et al., 2020), although further research is needed. Activity and participation levels increased with PMD use (Livingstone & Field, 2014; Hospodar et al., 2021), resulting in greater independence (Livingstone & Field, 2014) and higher levels of collaboration in activities of daily living (Aceros & Lundy, 2020). These positive effects are particularly notable for children with severe disabilities (Aceros et al., 2025). In the light of the studies by James et al. (2019) and Bray et al. (2020), it has been shown that PMDs have a positive impact on ensuring children’s self-directed mobility and play (Hospodar et al., 2021). The increasing number of experimental research projects such as that from Huang et al. (2023), is also worth mentioning. These authors propose a randomized clinical trial combining different postures (sitting and standing) in MROCs, compared to a control group. Feldner et al. (2022) aimed to compare the use of the Permobil Mini-Explorer® with MROCs in terms of children’s participation.
However, it is also crucial to address the phenomenon of early powered mobility also from a qualitative perspective. In Pituch et al. (2019), the perceptions of four stakeholder groups were sought: parents; professionals from rehabilitation centers; teachers from special schools; and children, who were asked to express their view through drawings. Feldner et al. (2019) used photovoice to explore the process of acquiring PMDs, including the voices of children as co-researchers. Barreto et al. (2024) followed the same exploratory methodology (photovoice). In this case, the participants were mothers of children with severe motor and cognitive disabilities. A participatory approach was used to develop assessment tools for powered mobility, enabling a collaborative shared process between experts and users (Kamaraj et al., 2014). It is important to highlight when it comes to children’s participation levels, parents’ observations and experiences are crucial for assessing the adequacy of PMDs in different environments (Field et al., 2015). The study by Wiart et al. (2004) found that mothers perceive their children’s use of powered wheelchairs as enhancing independence, increasing participation in meaningful activities, and facilitating more positive social relationships with peers.
Parents identify MROCs as a fun device and a therapeutic intervention that enable their children to explore the environment with greater confidence, wonder, and joy, and report improvements in the socio-emotional sphere (Barchus et al., 2023). In addition, Livingstone and Field (2015) provide a review that offers evidence of the benefits for children and families, while Currier et al. (2019), based on grounded theory, offer a model of how the EPW is used to develop the child’s competence and parents’ experience. This model suggests that the device acts as a catalyst of this device in the medium and long term.

3.3. Environmental and Physical Barriers or Limitations

PMDs have been used in various locations, including ECI centers, homes, hospitals, and schools (Ross et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2018; Hospodar et al., 2021), demonstrating the wide range of factors involved in the physical, social, and attitudinal domains and underscoring the need for context-specific strategies to ensure effective implementation and inclusion.
  • Physical barriers
Small spaces, inaccessible buildings and unfavorable land and weather conditions are among the physical barriers (Livingstone & Field, 2015). These barriers can present an economic challenge for some families, as they may need to make architectural modifications or ensure the transport of the devices (Cury et al., 2013). This is a significant barrier that negatively impacts parents’ experience of using the devices (Logan et al., 2020a). While EPWs are characterized by being large, heavy, and expensive (Feldner et al., 2016), MROCs and other PMDs are more manageable. Other limitations include to excessive noise, battery life, and acceleration capacity (Pritchard-Wiart et al., 2019; Logan et al., 2020b), which operation on certain pavements.
  • Attitudinal barriers
For parents, negative attitudes encompass beliefs and hopes regarding their children’s future ability to walk, which can hinder the acceptance of assistive technology (L. K. Kenyon et al., 2018a). The child-friendly design of MROCs helps to dispel the stigma associated with disability (Barchus et al., 2023) and could contribute to a new perception of disability (Feldner et al., 2019). Children experience joy and pride in being able to move on their own, but also frustration, anxiety, and despair when the PMD does not reach their expectations (L. K. Kenyon et al., 2018a). It is worth mentioning that families’ perceptions can change over time (L. K. Kenyon et al., 2025). For this reason, it is recommended that several types are tested before a definitive one is provided, bearing in mind that the experience of parents, children and professionals will influence their satisfaction, acceptance and use (Field & Livingstone, 2022).
  • Social barriers
These include the rules, administrative procedures and political priorities by which social services are governed. On many occasions, these are seen as a barrier to overcome rather than as opportunities (Livingstone & Field, 2015). The high cost of commercial PMDs for many families is one of the factors that restrict their use. The acquisition, financing and coverage processes differ in each country and context (L. K. Kenyon et al., 2018b). It should be noted that the decision to buy a PMD may entail an emotional process for the family (Feldner et al., 2019). MROCs seem to offer a gentle introduction to powered mobility, similar to other child-oriented models such as the Wizzy Bug® (Pritchard-Wiart et al., 2019).

3.4. Children and Family/Informal Care Factors

According to Logan et al. (2020a), children’s experiences with PMDs and MROCs vary depending on health conditions (e.g., illness, fatigue, or recovery from surgery), individual tolerance (e.g., responses to movement, sound, or acceleration, or a lack of enjoyment), and motor or cognitive delays (e.g., lack of trunk control, vision difficulties, or limited understanding of cause and effect). Additional family- or caregiver-related factors include limited time and physical constraints, which may complicate activities such as transferring children in and out of MROCs. Therefore, the interaction between people, technology, activity, and environment is of utmost importance (Rousseau-Harrison & Rochette, 2013). Families may be motivated to obtain a PMD to enhance the child’s mobility at home or improve family quality of life rather than primarily to foster socialization.

3.5. Professional Beliefs

Although ECI professionals and families should be aware of and discuss the timing and convenience of PMDs, incorporating them into children’s routines is often delayed. Understanding the beliefs, attitudes and barriers of professionals regarding practice enables these devices to be incorporated more effectively in line with family needs, the child’s psychomotor development and the therapeutic approach. Studies have reported negative attitudes among ECI professionals towards the MROCs (Livingstone & Field, 2015). Professionals and families often consider the use of PMDs to be a last resort (L. K. Kenyon et al., 2018a), although some studies have highlighted positive attitudes towards them among physiotherapists and occupational therapists (L. Kenyon et al., 2018).

4. Implications

PMDs are designed to enable children with motor disabilities to achieve autonomous mobility, which positively affects their development, quality of life, and well-being. Recognizing mobility as a human right and valuing families’ daily experiences are essential first steps in determining the suitability of PMDs for each case (Feldner et al., 2016). The findings indicate that different conditions determine PMD use, satisfaction, and effectiveness, underscoring the need to assess children’s specific needs (Sotalin-Ortiz et al., 2025). The synthesis also highlights the importance of collaboration among professionals working with young children, which is crucial for integrating perspectives and involving families (Masabanda-Naranjo et al., 2025).
Physical, social, and attitudinal barriers to the use of PMDs by children with motor disabilities can restrict participation, as identified in the ICF (World Health Organization, 2011). Parents report barriers related to transport, the type of assistive devices, and architectural design, all of which affect diverse community settings (Kang et al., 2017). Addressing these barriers is essential to ensure inclusion, as the physical characteristics of the school and the attitudes of teachers and peers can determine the extent of participation for children who use PMDs. The study by L. K. Kenyon et al. (2020) illustrates that both age and cognitive skills are critical factors when determining readiness for pediatric power mobility, highlighting the importance of individualized assessment.
Motor disability poses challenges for children, their families, and schools, which can jeopardize children’s inclusion and education (Tavares & Loução, 2024; Paz-Lourido et al., 2020; Douglas et al., 2022). A key question is whether the use of PMDs can mitigate these challenges. However, inclusion depends on multiple factors, such as children’s adjustment during the first year of school, personal and background characteristics, school-based transition activities, preschool and early school experiences, and the presence or absence of friends (Margetts, 2002). The attitudes of peers and other school members toward diversity are critical to creating an inclusive climate, as negative attitudes can undermine well-intentioned strategies (Hutzler & Levi, 2008; Tanure et al., 2018). Although social interactions in inclusive physical education can be beneficial, social isolation, exclusion, and a lack of belonging among students with motor disabilities remain concerns (Qi & Ha, 2012; Rekaa et al., 2018). This must be considered when discussing the inclusion of children who use PMDs.
It is known that families’ perceptions of ECI vary not only according to the type of service provided (Verger et al., 2021) but also according to their beliefs about child development and their cultural background (Acar et al., 2021). This review shows that family attitudes and beliefs can influence whether children with motor disabilities gain early access to PMDs. These attitudes may evolve over time, highlighting the need for support and guidance when facing challenging decisions. Families of children with motor disabilities often encounter complex situations that require multiple community resources (Cunha de Araújo et al., 2016) and may experience anxiety, depression, and other conditions due to caregiving demands (Verger et al., 2020; Bagur et al., 2022a, 2022b).
Teachers’ beliefs and inclusion policies also influence children’s inclusion in school settings (Fitzgerald, 2006; Tanure et al., 2017; van Rhijn et al., 2021). Building on Hutzler et al. (2019), physical education teachers should be aware of the factors that influence their attitudes and self-efficacy regarding the inclusion of children with motor disabilities. These factors include teaching experience, professional and academic training in inclusion, school environmental conditions (e.g., a process-oriented rather than a performance-oriented approach), and the characteristics of the children and their families. This issue warrants further exploration with respect to school inclusion of children using PMDs.
Psychomotor activities aim to promote independent movement to enhance self-efficacy, self-esteem, and social cohesion within groups, but they can also impact their physical activity and health trajectories (Dobell et al., 2023). For children with motor disabilities, it is important that teachers understand PMD types, listen to families, and collaborate with ECI centers. This approach enables longitudinal monitoring of children’s experiences with PMDs and supports necessary adjustments. Long-term partnerships of this kind (Kambouri et al., 2022) can foster child-friendly design adaptations (Currier et al., 2019). Physical education teachers can also guide innovative leisure activities and encourage families with PMDs to socialize with other families and students outside of school, for example, through appropriate sports or outdoor activities.
Schools may require structural changes to improve access for children using PMDs Table 4). Such adaptations could include improved paving, widened access points, ramps, and modifications to classrooms, laboratories, and bathrooms. Accessibility considerations should also extend to the surrounding school environment and outdoor activities on unpaved terrain. Another requirement is identifying recharging points during the school day, visits, or excursions.
In addition, clear rules on the speed and use of these devices inside and outside classrooms are needed. Other strategies to support inclusion include helping families develop parenting skills, reducing stress, and raising awareness among classmates. Additional curricular adaptations may also be necessary, as children who use PMDs may have other developmental disabilities. Emphasizing the child’s abilities and strengths can foster resilience and motivation.
Using a PMD involves a learning process for children (L. K. Kenyon et al., 2017; Field & Livingstone, 2018) and therefore requires professional guidance, which should also be extended to others who share spaces with the children to ensure safety and effective participation. Providing training on PMDs can give teachers confidence, alleviate families’ concerns, and enable children to participate safely and independently. In some cases, schools include physiotherapists or assistant professionals who can help prepare families and teachers for the child’s transition to school (Lehrer et al., 2017). In all cases, a needs assessment will enable the development of individualized intervention plans aligned with inclusion policies.
As a limitation of this study, it should be noted that the search focused specifically on the early incorporation of PMDs, and the results were synthesized and interpreted with consideration of issues relevant to the transition of these children to school, particularly the potential role of physical education. Further research in diverse social environments for children, including schools, is needed, as the impact of PMDs on the inclusion of children with disabilities remains an underexplored area. The implications drawn from the literature need to be examined in light of the specific context and other influencing factors.

5. Conclusions

Children with motor disabilities can achieve autonomous mobility at an early stage using powered mobility devices, which enhances their quality of life. It is important for interprofessional Early Childhood Intervention teams and families to understand both the potential advantages and the barriers associated with powered mobility devices. Incorporating these devices into children’s lives requires a collaborative decision-making process between professionals and families, which in turn has implications for school practices, resources, and inclusion policies. Given the importance of physical education for children’s development and school inclusion, removing barriers to participation is essential for children who use powered mobility devices. As this is an emerging field, further studies are needed to help families and professionals identify the relevance of powered mobility devices in specific contexts and to determine the most appropriate type of powered mobility devices, taking into account children’s preferences. Although having a powered mobility device can increase children’s participation at school, it is crucial to establish norms and conditions to maximize the benefits and to provide training for teachers and staff. This requires ongoing communication and collaboration between Early Childhood Intervention professionals and teachers, as well as longitudinal monitoring and evaluation of children’s experiences. Future research should explore how powered mobility devices can be more effectively integrated across early intervention and school settings to promote equitable participation and inclusion for children with motor disabilities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.P.-L. and M.P.-D.; methodology, M.P.-D. and B.P.-L.; validation, J.V.R.-O. and M.Á.V.-S.-E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.-D. and B.P.-L.; writing—review and editing M.P.-D., J.V.R.-O. and M.Á.V.-S.-E. and B.P.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ECIEarly Childhood Intervention
PEPhysical Education
ICFInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
PMDPowered Mobility Devices
PKEVPowered Kids Electric Vehicles
MROCModified Ride-On Cars
EPWElectric Powered Wheelchair
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. Acar, S., Chen, C. I., & Xie, H. (2021). Parental involvement in developmental disabilities across three cultures: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 110, 103861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aceros, J., Cesar, G. M., Rodriguez, A., & Lundy, M. (2025). The effects of family directed power mobility on self-care, mobility, and social function in very young children with severe multiple developmental impairments. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 6, 1551536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aceros, J., & Lundy, M. (2020). Enhanced steering and drive adaptations of modified ride-on toy cars for improved directional control in very young children with severe multiple developmental impairments. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8(8), 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bagur, S., Paz-Lourido, B., Mut-Amengual, B., & Verger, S. (2022a). Relationship between parental mental health and developmental disorders in early childhood. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(6), e4840–e4849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bagur, S., Paz-Lourido, B., Rosselló, M. R., & Verger, S. (2022b). Empowerment, anxiety and depression in families using early childhood intervention services. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(2), 276–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ball, N. J., Mercado, E., III, & Orduña, I. (2019). Enriched environments as a potential treatment for developmental disorders: A critical assessment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Barchus, R., Barroero, C., Schnare, W., Dean, S. M., & Feldner, H. A. (2023). “Kind of empowered”: Perceptions of socio-emotional development in children driving ride-on cars. Rehabilitation Psychology, 68(2), 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barreto, A. S., Felix, J. B., Feldner, H., Figueiredo, M. T., Macedo, G. K., Coutinho, D. N., Gadelha, M. D. S., Monteiro, K., & Longo, E. (2024). Experiences of children with congenital Zika syndrome while using motorized mobility: A qualitative study using the photovoice method. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(8), 3089–3099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S., & Suwalsky, J. T. D. (2013). Physically developed and exploratory young infants contribute to their own long-term academic achievement. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1906–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bray, N., Kolehmainen, N., McAnuff, J., Tanner, L., Tuersley, L., Beyer, F., & Craig, D. (2020). Powered mobility interventions for very young children with mobility limitations to aid participation and positive development: The EMPoWER evidence synthesis. Health Technology Assessment, 24(50), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Buelvas Girón, H., Navarro-Obeid, J., Álvarez González, C., Cárdenas Mercado, R., Pérez Domínguez, W., & Márquez Toscano, K. (2025). A systematic review of the impact of psychomotor development on learning processes in preschool and elementary school children. Gaceta Médica de Caracas, 133(Suppl. S1), S286–S298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bueno, D. (2017). Neurociencia para educadores. Octaedro. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cedeño-Jama, K. E., & Rodríguez-Zambrano, A. D. (2024). Educación física como herramienta para la promoción de la integración de niños con discapacidad. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Humanidades, Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología, 10(1), 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cheung, W. C., Meadan, H., & Yang, H. W. (2020). Effects of powered mobility device interventions on social skills for children with disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 32, 855–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Coello-Villalón, M., Díaz-López, C. I., López-Muñoz, P., Romay-Barrero, H., Pacheco-da-Costa, S., Plasencia-Robledo, M., Longo, E., & Palomo-Carrión, R. (2025). Families’ perceptions of powered mobility for participation in children with spinal muscular atrophy type 1: A photovoice study. Health Expectations, 28(3), e70278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cunha de Araújo, C. A., Paz-Lourido, B., & Verger Gelabert, S. (2016). Tipos de apoyo a las familias con hijos con discapacidad y su influencia en la calidad de vida familiar. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva, 21(10), 3121–3130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Currier, B. A., Jones, M. A., & DeGrace, B. W. (2019). Experiences of families with young power wheelchair users. Journal of Early Intervention, 41(2), 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cury, V. C., Figueiredo, P. R., & Mancini, M. C. (2013). Environmental settings and families’ socioeconomic status influence mobility and the use of mobility devices by children with cerebral palsy. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 71, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Dobell, A. P., Faghy, M. A., Pringle, A., & Roscoe, C. M. P. (2023). Improving fundamental movement skills during early childhood: An intervention mapping approach. Children, 10(6), 1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Douglas, S. N., Meadan, H., & Schultheiss, H. (2022). A meta-synthesis of caregivers’ experiences transitioning from early intervention to early childhood special education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(3), 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Drudy, S., & Kinsella, W. (2009). Developing an inclusive system in a rapidly changing European society. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(6), 647–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Feldner, H. A., Logan, S. W., & Galloway, J. C. (2016). Why the time is right for a radical paradigm shift in early powered mobility: The role of powered mobility technology devices, policy and stakeholders. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(2), 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Feldner, H. A., Logan, S. W., & Galloway, J. C. (2019). Mobility in pictures: A participatory photovoice narrative study exploring powered mobility provision for children and families. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(3), 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Feldner, H. A., Logan, S. W., & Kenyon, L. K. (2022). In the driver’s seat: A randomized, crossover clinical trial proto-col comparing home and community use of the Permobil Explorer Mini and a modified ride-on car by children with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy, 102(7), pzac062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Field, D. A., & Livingstone, R. W. (2018). Power mobility skill progression for children and adolescents: A systematic review of measures and their clinical application. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 60(10), 997–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Field, D. A., & Livingstone, R. W. (2022). Parents’ and therapists’ satisfaction with four early childhood powered mobility devices. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 89(4), 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Field, D. A., Miller, W. C., Jarus, T., Ryan, S. E., & Roxborough, L. (2015). Important elements of measuring participation for children who need or use power mobility: A modified Delphi survey. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 57(6), 556–563. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fitzgerald, H. (2006). Disability and physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Disability and physical education (pp. 752–766). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  29. García, E., Carrillo, P. J., & Rosa, A. (2020). Medidas desde el Área de Educación Física para atender a las discapacidades motrices e intelectuales. e-Motion: Revista de Educación, Motricidad e Investigación, 14, 82–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. García-Ventura, S., Mas, J., Balcells-Balcells, A., Dunst, C. J., & Cañadas, M. (2023). Early childhood intervention practitioners’ competence and confidence appraisals using recommended practices and relationship with parent involvement. Annals of Psychology, 39(3), 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443–463. [Google Scholar]
  32. Guerette, P., Furumasu, J., & Tefft, D. (2013). The positive effects of early powered mobility on children’s psychosocial and play skills. Assistive Technology, 25(1), 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Guillem, M., & Bueno, D. (2019). Actividad física y funciones ejecutivas durante la infancia desde una perspectiva educativa. In L. Lluch, & N. de la Vega (Eds.), El Ágora de la neurociencia. La neurociencia explicada y aplicada (pp. 179–186). Octaedro. [Google Scholar]
  34. Guralnick, M. J. (2020). Applying the developmental systems approach to inclusive community-based early intervention programs: Process and practice. Infants Young Child, 33(3), 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hospodar, C. M., Feldner, H. A., & Logan, S. W. (2021). Active mobility, active participation: A systematic review of modified ride-on car use by children with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 18(6), 974–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Huang, H. H., & Galloway, J. C. (2012). Modified ride-on toy cars for early power mobility: A technical report. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 24(2), 149–154. [Google Scholar]
  37. Huang, H. H., Hsieh, Y. H., Chang, C. H., Tsai, W. Y., Huang, C. K., & Chen, C. L. (2023). Ride-on car training using sitting and standing postures for mobility and socialization in young children with motor delays: A randomized controlled trial. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45(9), 1453–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, H. H., Huang, H. W., Chen, Y. M., Hsieh, Y. H., Shih, M. K., & Chen, C. L. (2018). Modified ride-on cars and mastery motivation in young children with disabilities: Effects of environmental modifications. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 83, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hutzler, Y., & Levi, I. (2008). Including children with disability in physical education: General and specific attitudes of high-school students. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 1(2), 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hutzler, Y., Meier, S., Reuker, S., & Zitomer, M. (2019). Attitudes and self-efficacy of physical education teachers toward inclusion of children with disabilities: A narrative review of international literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(3), 249–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. James, D., Pfaff, J., & Jeffries, L. M. (2019). Modified ride-on cars as early mobility for children with mobility limitations: A scoping review. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics, 39(5), 525–542. [Google Scholar]
  42. Janus, M., Kopechanski, L., Cameron, R., & Hughes, D. (2008). In transition: Experiences of parents of children with special needs at school entry. Early Children Education Journal, 35(5), 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jones, M. A., McEwen, I. R., & Neas, B. R. (2012). Effects of power wheelchairs on the development and function of young children with severe motor impairments. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 24(2), 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kamaraj, D. C., Dicianno, B. E., & Cooper, R. A. (2014). A participatory approach to develop the power mobility screening tool and the power mobility clinical driving assessment tool. BioMed Research International, 2014(1), 541614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kambouri, M., Wilson, T., Pieridou, M., Quinn, S. F., & Liu, J. (2022). Making partnerships work: Proposing a model to support parent-practitioner partnerships in the early years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(4), 639–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kang, H., Hsieh, Y., & Chen, S. (2017). Environmental barriers to participation of preschool children with and without physical disabilities. International Journal for Studies on Children, Women, Elderly and Disabled, 14, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kenyon, L., Birkmeier, M., & Anderson, D. (2018). Physiotherapy and wheelchairs. InMotion, 29(2), 14–15. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kenyon, L. K., Farris, J. P., Gallagher, C., Hammond, L., Webster, L. M., & Aldrich, N. J. (2017). Power mobility training for young children with multiple, severe impairments: A case series. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 37(1), 19–34. [Google Scholar]
  49. Kenyon, L. K., Jones, M., Breaux, B., Tsotsoros, J., Gardner, T., & Livingstone, R. (2020). American and Canadian therapists’ perspectives of age and cognitive skills for paediatric power mobility: A qualitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(6), 692–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Kenyon, L. K., Jones, M., Livingstone, R., Breaux, B., Tsotsoros, J., & Williams, K. M. (2018a). Power mobility for children: A survey study of American and Canadian therapists’ perspectives and practices. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 60(10), 1018–1025. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kenyon, L. K., Mortenson, W. B., & Miller, W. C. (2018b). ‘Power in Mobility’: Parent and therapist perspectives of the experiences of children learning to use powered mobility. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 60(10), 1012–1017. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kenyon, L. K., Sloane, B. M., Beers, L. N., Chung, K. J., Doty, J., Erlenbeck, A. R., Herrenkohl, M., Logan, S. W., & Feldner, H. A. (2025). Tiny drivers, big decisions: Parental perceptions and experiences of power mobility device trials for young children with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 20(5), 1566–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kolb, B., Harker, A., & Gibb, R. (2017). Principles of plasticity in the developing brain. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 59(12), 1218–1223. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lehrer, J., Bigras, N., & Laurin, I. (2017). Preparing children and families for the transition to school: The role of early childhood educators. International Journal of Transitions in Childhood, 10, 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  55. Livingstone, R., & Field, D. (2014). Systematic review of power mobility outcomes for infants, children and adolescents with mobility limitations. Clinical Rehabilitation, 28(10), 954–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Livingstone, R., & Field, D. (2015). The child and family experience of power mobility: A qualitative synthesis. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 57(4), 317–327. [Google Scholar]
  57. Livingstone, R., & Paleg, G. (2014). Practice considerations for the introduction and use of power mobility for children. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56(3), 210–221. [Google Scholar]
  58. Logan, S. W., Feldner, H. A., Bogart, K. R., Catena, M. A., Hospodar, C. M., Vora, J. R., Smart, W. D., & Massey, W. V. (2020a). Perceived barriers before and after a 3-month period of modified ride-on car use. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 32(3), 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Logan, S. W., Feldner, H. A., Bogart, K. R., Catena, M. A., Hospodar, C. M., Vora, J. R., Smart, W. D., & Massey, W. V. (2020b). Perceived barriers of modified ride-on car use of young children with disabilities: A content analysis. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 32(2), 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Logan, S. W., Feldner, H. A., Galloway, J. C., & Huang, H. H. (2016). Modified ride-on car use by children with complex medical needs. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 28(1), 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Logan, S. W., Hospodar, C. M., Bogart, K. R., Catena, M. A., Feldner, H. A., Fitzgerald, J., Schaffer, S., Sloane, B., Phelps, B., Phelps, J., & Smart, W. D. (2019). Real world tracking of modified ride-on car usage in young children with disabilities. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 7(3), 336–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Logan, S. W., Huang, H. H., Stahlin, K., & Galloway, J. C. (2014). Modified ride-on car for mobility and socialization: Single-case study of an infant with down syndrome. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 26(4), 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Logan, S. W., Lobo, M. A., Feldner, H. A., Schreiber, M., MacDonald, M., Winden, H. N., Stoner, T., & Galloway, J. C. (2017). Power-up: Exploration and play in a novel modified ride-on car for standing. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 29(1), 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mannino, G., & Robazza, C. (2018). Habilidades motoras y actividad motora. In S. Tamorri (Ed.), Neurociencias y deporte (pp. 47–64). Paidotribo. [Google Scholar]
  65. Margetts, K. (2002). Transition to school—Complexity and diversity. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10(2), 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Marope, P. T. M., & Kaga, Y. (Eds.). (2015). Investing against evidence: The global state of early childhood care and education. UNESCO. [Google Scholar]
  67. Martin, M. R., & Dischino, M. (2017). Go baby go! The freedom of movement. Palaestra, 31(4), 14. [Google Scholar]
  68. Martínez-Morga, M., Martínez, S., & Martínez, S. (2016). Conferencia inaugural Desarrollo y plasticidad del cerebro. Revista de Neurologia, 62, S3–S8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Masabanda-Naranjo, A. C., Abril-Lucero, G. L., Labre-Tarco, V. E., & Santamaria-Tenesaca, L. J. (2025). Aumento de la autonomy en pacientes con discapacidad motora. Revista de Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación, 1(1), 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morgan, C., Fetters, L., Adde, L., Badawi, N., Bancale, A., Boyd, R. N., Chorna, O., Cioni, G., Damiano, D. L., Darrah, J., De Vries, L. S., Dusing, S., Einspieler, C., Eliasson, A. C., Ferriero, D., Fehlings, D., Forssberg, H., Gordon, A. M., Greaves, S., … Novak, I. (2021). Early intervention for children aged 0 to 2 years with or at high risk of cerebral palsy: International clinical practice guideline based on systematic reviews. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(8), 846–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nisbet, P. D. (2002). Assessment and training of children for powered mobility in the UK. Technology and Disability, 14(4), 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Obrusnikova, I. (2008). Physical educator’ beliefs about teaching children with disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(2), 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Palomo-Carrión, R., López-Muñoz, P., Longo, E., Romay-Barrero, H., Ródenas-Martínez, M., Plasencia-Robledo, M., de Andrés-Beltrán, B., Coello-Villalón, M., Díaz-López, C., & Pacheco-da-Costa, S. (2024). AMEsobreRuedas early powered mobility in children with spinal muscular atrophy type I: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(16), 4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Paz-Lourido, B., & Hervás-Torres, M. (2025). Atención temprana en los menores con riesgo socioambiental. In M. Bellido-González, & M. Hervás-Torres (Eds.), Atención temprana en la infancia basada en la evidencia (pp. 355–372). McGraw Hill. [Google Scholar]
  75. Paz-Lourido, B., Negre, F., De la Iglesia, B., & Verger, S. (2020). Influence of schooling on the health-related quality of life of children with rare diseases. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pituch, E., Rushton, P. W., Ngo, M., Heales, J., & Poulin Arguin, A. (2019). Powerful or powerless? Children’s, parents’, and occupational therapists’ perceptions of powered mobility. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 39(3), 276–291. [Google Scholar]
  77. Plummer, T., Logan, S. W., & Morress, C. (2020). Explorer Mini: Infants’ initial experience with a novel pediatric powered mobility device. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 41(2), 192–208. [Google Scholar]
  78. Pritchard-Wiart, L., Bragg, E., & Thompson-Hodgetts, S. (2019). The young movers project: A case series describing modified toy car use as an early movement option for young children with mobility limitations. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 39(6), 598–613. [Google Scholar]
  79. Proenza-Pupo, J. R. (2020). Educación física inclusiva: Modelo y paradigma. Revista Científica Especializada en Ciencias de la Cultura Física y del Deporte, 18(47), 145–160. [Google Scholar]
  80. Qi, J., & Ha, A. S. (2012). Inclusion in physical education: A review of literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(3), 257–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rekaa, H., Hanisch, H., & Ytterhus, B. (2018). Inclusion in physical education: Teacher attitudes and student experiences. A systematic review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(1), 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rojo-Ramos, J., González-Becerra, M. J., Gómez-Paniagua, S., Carlos-Vivas, J., Acevedo-Duque, Á., & Adsuar, J. C. (2022). Psychomotor skills activities in the classroom from an early childhood education teachers’ perspective. Children, 9(8), 1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Rosen, L., Plummer, T., Sabet, A., Lange, M. L., & Livingstone, R. (2018). RESNA position on the application of powered mobility devices for pediatric users. Assistive Technology, 35(1), 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ross, S. M., Catena, M., Twardzik, E., Hospodar, C., Cook, E., Ayyagari, A., & Logan, S. W. (2018). Feasibility of a modified ride-on car intervention on play behaviors during an inclusive playgroup. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 38(5), 493–509. [Google Scholar]
  85. Rousseau-Harrison, K., & Rochette, A. (2013). Impacts of wheelchair acquisition on children from a person-occupation-environment interactional perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sabet, A., Feldner, H., Tucker, J., Logan, S. W., & Galloway, J. C. (2022). ON time mobility: Advocating for mobility equity. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 34(4), 546–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sanders, D. A. (2017). Non-model-based control of a wheeled vehicle pulling two trailers to provide early powered mobility and driving experiences. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 26(1), 96–104. [Google Scholar]
  88. Sloane, B. M., Case, F., Quinn, E., Sanford-Keller, H., & Logan, S. W. (2023). Modified ride-on car intervention for children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: A case series. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 35(2), 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Sotalin-Ortiz, E. D., Abril-Lucero, G. L., Labre-Tarco, V. E., & Quishpe-Sarabia, D. E. (2025). Aumento de la autonomía en pacientes con discapacidad motora. Revista Científica Retos de la Ciencia, 1(5), 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Stansfield, S., Dennis, C., Altman, R., Smith, J., & Larin, H. (2018). A comparison of the efficacy of weight-shift vs. joystick control of a robotic mobility device by infants ages 5 to 10 months. Assistive Technology, 30(2), 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Tanure, M. L., Grenier, M., Haegele, J. A., & Duarte, E. (2018). ‘I didn’t do anything, I just watched’: Perspectives of Brazilian students with physical disabilities toward physical education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(10), 1129–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tanure, M. L., Storch, J. A., Harnisch, G., Miranda, A., Piva da Cunha Furtado, O. L., Lieberman, L., Gavião de Almeida, J. J., & Duarte, E. (2017). Physical education classes and inclusion of children with disability: Brazilian teachers’ perspectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quaterly, 23(4), 1229–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tarantino, G., & Neville, R. D. (2023). Inclusion of children with disabilities and special educational needs in physical education: An exploratory study of factors associated with Irish teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and school context. Irish Educational Studies, 42(4), 487–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tavares, F., & Loução, A. P. (2024). Inclusive education of children with disabilities in cape verde: Voices of parents/guardians and teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 39(2), 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tithi, P., Di Rezze, B., Rosenbaum, P., Peter, C., Annie, J., Eileen, K., & Wenonah, C. (2022). Perspectives of children and youth with disabilities and special needs regarding their experiences in inclusive education: A meta-aggregative review. Frontiers in Education, 7, 864752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tollan, K., Jezrawi, R., Underwood, K., & Janus, M. (2023). A review on early intervention systems. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 10(2), 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7), 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. van Rhijn, T., Underwood, K., Frankel, E., Lero, D. S., Spalding, K., Janus, M., Friendly, M., & Haché, A. (2021). Role of child care in creating inclusive communities and access for all. Canadian Public Policy, 47(3), 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Verger, S., Negre, F., Rosselló, M. R., & Paz-Lourido, B. (2020). Inclusion and equity in educational services for children with rare diseases: Challenges and opportunities. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Verger, S., Riquelme, I., Bagur, S., & Paz-Lourido, B. (2021). Satisfaction and quality of life of families participating in two different early intervention models in the same context: A mixed methods study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 650736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Weinstein, M. L., Lloyd, M., Finch, K. A., & Laszacs, A. D. (2018). Underappreciated challenges to pediatric powered mobility–Ways to address them as illustrated by a case report. Assistive Technology, 30(2), 74–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Wiart, L., & Darrah, J. (2002). Changing philosophical perspectives on the management of children with physical disabilities. Their effect on the use of powered mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(9), 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Wiart, L., Darrah, J., Hollis, V., Cook, A., & May, L. (2004). Mothers’ perceptions of their children’s use of powered mobility. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 24(4), 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of disability and health functioning: ICF. World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  105. World Health Organization. (2011). International classification of disability and health functioning: ICF: Version for children and adolescents. World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
Education 15 01372 g001
Figure 1. Scoping Review flux diagram.
Figure 1. Scoping Review flux diagram.
Education 15 01372 g001
Table 1. PICO structure.
Table 1. PICO structure.
KeywordsDescriptor DeCS, 2025Free Term
P (Population)children with motor impairmentdisabled children, developmental disabilities, mobility limitation-
I (Intervention)wheelchair, electric/motorized mobility deviceswheelchair, motorized mobility scootermobility aid, mobility device, power mobility, ride on car
C (Comparison)---
O (Outcomes)child development, participation, autonomy, functionalitychild development, social participation, personal autonomy, functional status-
Table 2. SPIDER structure.
Table 2. SPIDER structure.
KeywordsDescriptor DeCS, 2025Free Term
S (Sample)children with motor impairment and their familiesdisabled children, developmental disabilities, mobility limitation, family-
PI (Phenomenon of interest)wheelchair, electric/motorized mobility deviceswheelchair, motorized mobility scootermobility aid, mobility device, power mobility, ride on car
D (Design)interview, focus group, participatory action researchinterview,
focus groups		participatory action research
E (Evaluation)experience, attitudesattitudeexperience
R (Research type)Qualitative studiesqualitative researchqualitative method
Table 3. Equations.
Table 3. Equations.
EBSCOHOST PICO
(disabled children OR developmental disabilities OR mobility limitations) AND (wheelchair OR motorized mobility scooter OR mobility aid OR mobility device OR power mobility OR ride-on-car) AND (child development OR social participation OR personal autonomy OR functional status)
EBSCOHOST SPIDER
(disabled children OR developmental disabilities OR mobility limitations OR family) AND (wheelchair OR motorized mobility scooter OR mobility aid OR mobility device OR power mobility OR ride-on-car) AND (interview OR focus groups OR participatory action research) AND (attitude OR experience) AND (qualitative research)
Table 4. Implications for schools.
Table 4. Implications for schools.
AreaActions
Adaptations in Built and Outdoor EnvironmentsImprove flooring (e.g., non-slip surfaces).
Ensure clear pathways.
Adapt access points (e.g., wider doors, access ramps).
Implement adaptations in classrooms, laboratories, and bathrooms.
Provide charging points for PMDs.
Awareness and Capacity-BuildingPromote activities aimed at teachers, school staff, families and peers (e.g., training on PMDs, strategies to promote inclusion, fostering a supportive classroom culture, stress reduction).
Curriculum Adaptations and Assistive TechnologyEvaluate and implement curricular adaptations.
Assess the need of alternative and/or augmentative communication technology.
Use specialized equipment and assistive tools to increase engagement.
Inclusive Physical EducationAdjustment of rules and goals; provide a variety of choices in activities.
Break down skills and use of peer-buddy systems.
Offer activities based on children’s strengths when using PMDs.
Foster a sense of joy and belonging.
Professional Support and Family engagementInvolve support staff (e.g., physiotherapists, occupational therapists, teacher assistants).
Establish collaboration and coordination protocols with ECI services.
Promote family engagement and communication.
Policies and AdministrationCo-create specific norms and routines of co-existence (e.g., regarding speed, noise, safety distance, comfort)
Include PMDs in the school safety protocol (e.g., insurance and emergency procedures).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Perelló-Díez, M.; Ruiz-Omeñaca, J.V.; Valdemoros-San-Emeterio, M.Á.; Paz-Lourido, B. The Use of Powered Devices to Support Autonomous Mobility in Children with Motor Disability Attending Early Childhood Intervention: Implications for Physical Education and School Inclusion. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1372. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101372

AMA Style

Perelló-Díez M, Ruiz-Omeñaca JV, Valdemoros-San-Emeterio MÁ, Paz-Lourido B. The Use of Powered Devices to Support Autonomous Mobility in Children with Motor Disability Attending Early Childhood Intervention: Implications for Physical Education and School Inclusion. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(10):1372. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101372

Chicago/Turabian Style

Perelló-Díez, Marina, Jesús Vicente Ruiz-Omeñaca, María Ángeles Valdemoros-San-Emeterio, and Berta Paz-Lourido. 2025. "The Use of Powered Devices to Support Autonomous Mobility in Children with Motor Disability Attending Early Childhood Intervention: Implications for Physical Education and School Inclusion" Education Sciences 15, no. 10: 1372. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101372

APA Style

Perelló-Díez, M., Ruiz-Omeñaca, J. V., Valdemoros-San-Emeterio, M. Á., & Paz-Lourido, B. (2025). The Use of Powered Devices to Support Autonomous Mobility in Children with Motor Disability Attending Early Childhood Intervention: Implications for Physical Education and School Inclusion. Education Sciences, 15(10), 1372. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101372

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop