Using 2 Versions of the Test of Gross Motor Development to Classify and Screen Young Children's Motor Skills: A Comparison Study.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PEDIATRICS Pediatric Exercise Science Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1123/pes.2023-0189
Kara K Palmer, Alec McKheen, Stephanie A Palmer, Aaron P Wood, David F Stodden, Leah E Robinson
{"title":"Using 2 Versions of the Test of Gross Motor Development to Classify and Screen Young Children's Motor Skills: A Comparison Study.","authors":"Kara K Palmer, Alec McKheen, Stephanie A Palmer, Aaron P Wood, David F Stodden, Leah E Robinson","doi":"10.1123/pes.2023-0189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to examine comparability between 2 editions of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-second and TGMD-third edition) on (1) how children's motor skills were categorized as average or below average, and (2) how children are screened for being at-risk for motor delay or with delayed motor skills.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were 226 children (Mage = 53.4 mo, 125 boys). All children completed full TGMD-2 and TGMD-3. Children were classified as average or above (>25th percentile) or below average (≤25th percentile) and, when applicable, as developmental delay (≤5th percentile) or at-risk for developmental delay (6-25th percentile). We compared children's classifications across TGMD editions using percent agreement and chi-squared tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 had moderate agreement when categorizing children as below average (72.2% for total skills, 76.0% for locomotor skills, and 73% for ball skills). The TGMD-3 was significantly more likely to categorize children's motor skill performance as average or above (all P < .01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 similarly screen children who demonstrate below average skills (≤25th percentile), but not for specific skill level classifications, including above average, at-risk for delays, and delayed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49712,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Exercise Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Exercise Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.2023-0189","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine comparability between 2 editions of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-second and TGMD-third edition) on (1) how children's motor skills were categorized as average or below average, and (2) how children are screened for being at-risk for motor delay or with delayed motor skills.

Methods: Participants were 226 children (Mage = 53.4 mo, 125 boys). All children completed full TGMD-2 and TGMD-3. Children were classified as average or above (>25th percentile) or below average (≤25th percentile) and, when applicable, as developmental delay (≤5th percentile) or at-risk for developmental delay (6-25th percentile). We compared children's classifications across TGMD editions using percent agreement and chi-squared tests.

Results: The TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 had moderate agreement when categorizing children as below average (72.2% for total skills, 76.0% for locomotor skills, and 73% for ball skills). The TGMD-3 was significantly more likely to categorize children's motor skill performance as average or above (all P < .01).

Conclusion: TGMD-2 and TGMD-3 similarly screen children who demonstrate below average skills (≤25th percentile), but not for specific skill level classifications, including above average, at-risk for delays, and delayed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用两种版本的粗大运动发育测试对幼儿的运动技能进行分类和筛查:比较研究
目的:本研究的目的是考察两个版本的粗大运动发育测试(TGMD-第二版和TGMD-第三版)在以下方面的可比性:(1)如何将儿童的运动技能划分为平均水平或低于平均水平,以及(2)如何筛查有运动技能延迟风险或运动技能延迟的儿童:参与者为 226 名儿童(年龄 = 53.4 个月,125 名男孩)。所有儿童都完成了完整的 TGMD-2 和 TGMD-3。儿童被分为平均水平或高于平均水平(>第25百分位数)或低于平均水平(≤第25百分位数),并在适当情况下被分为发育迟缓(≤第5百分位数)或有发育迟缓风险(第6-25百分位数)。我们使用百分比一致性和卡方检验比较了儿童在不同版本 TGMD 中的分类:TGMD-2和TGMD-3在将儿童归类为低于平均水平时具有中等程度的一致性(72.2%为总技能,76.0%为运动技能,73%为球类技能)。TGMD-3更倾向于将儿童的运动技能表现归类为平均水平或以上(所有P < .01):结论:TGMD-2 和 TGMD-3 同样可以筛查技能低于平均水平(≤25 百分位数)的儿童,但不能筛查特定的技能水平分类,包括高于平均水平、有延迟风险和延迟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric Exercise Science
Pediatric Exercise Science 医学-生理学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Exercise Science is a journal committed to enriching the scientific knowledge of exercise during childhood and adolescence. To this end it publishes information that contributes to an understanding of (a) the unique aspects of the physiologic, physical, biochemical, and psychologic responses of children to exercise, (b) the role of exercise in the treatment of pediatric chronic diseases, (c) the importance of physical activity in the prevention of illness and preservation of wellness, and (d) the means by which participation in sports may be made safer and more enjoyable for children and youth. Consideration will be given for publication of work by various methodologies consistent with the scientific approach. Besides original research, the journal includes review articles, abstracts from other journals, book reviews, and editorial comments. Pediatric Exercise Science encourages the expression of conflicting opinions regarding children and exercise by providing a forum for alternative viewpoints. At the same time it serves as a means of accumulating a base of research information that will allow application of experimental data to clinical practice. The scientific disciplines contributing to this body of knowledge are diverse. Therefore it is the purpose of this journal to provide a common focus for disseminating advances in the science of exercise during childhood. In doing so, the journal allows the opportunity for cross-fertilization of ideas between disciplines that will potentiate the growth of knowledge in this field. Pediatric Exercise Science seeks to stimulate new ideas regarding exercise in children and to increase the awareness of scientists, health care providers, and physical educators of the importance of exercise during childhood.
期刊最新文献
Does Physical Exercise Improve Resting Autonomic Cardiac Modulation in Overweight and Obese Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Effects of Short- Versus Long-Distance Repeated-Sprint Ability Training on Physical Performance in Youth Male Soccer Players. Surveillance of Youth Sports Participation in the United States: Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions. Editor's Notes. Effectiveness of FIFA 11+ Injury Prevention Programs in Reducing Head and Neck Injuries, Including Concussion, Among Soccer Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1