A Support System for Gross Motor Assessment of Preschool Children

Author(s):  
Yukie Amemiya ◽  
Satoshi Suzuki ◽  
Maiko Satoh
1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauriece L. Zittel

Accurate gross motor assessment of preschool children with special needs is necessary for quality intervention. This paper will identify critical factors for the selection of a preschool gross motor assessment instrument. Nine commercially available tools that purport to measure gross motor skill are critiqued, in table form, according to identified criteria. The criteria include purpose of the assessment, technical adequacy of the tool, nondiscriminatory factors, administrative ease, instructional link, and ecological validity of the instrument. Key features within each of the criteria will be used to review and analyze each instrument. This review illustrates that assessment tools vary in their ability to meet the assessment needs of preschool children suspected of having motor delays, and such tools therefore must be carefully selected.


1989 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Rimmer ◽  
Luke E. Kelly

The purpose of this pilot study was to descriptively evaluate the effects of three different programs on the development of gross motor skills of preschool children with learning disabilities (n = 29). No attempt was made to equate the groups or control for differences between the programs or instructional staff. Two of the programs were used by the respective schools to develop the gross motor skills of their audience. The programs were called occupational therapy (OT) (45–60 min/day, 5 days/week) and adapted physical education (APE) (30 min/day, 4 days/week). A third group was evaluated to determine whether maturational effects had any involvement in gross motor development. This group was called the noninstructional program (NIP) (30 min/day, 2 days/week) and was solely involved in free play. The programs were all in session for the entire school year (33–35 weeks). The results of the study revealed that the children in the APE program made more significant gains across objectives, and particularly on the qualitative measures, than did the children in the OT or NIP groups.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e021734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Griffiths ◽  
Rachel Toovey ◽  
Prue E Morgan ◽  
Alicia J Spittle

ObjectiveGross motor assessment tools have a critical role in identifying, diagnosing and evaluating motor difficulties in childhood. The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical utility of gross motor assessment tools for children aged 2–12 years.MethodA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED was performed between May and July 2017. Methodological quality was assessed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments checklist and an outcome measures rating form was used to evaluate reliability, validity and clinical utility of assessment tools.ResultsSeven assessment tools from 37 studies/manuals met the inclusion criteria: Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development-III (Bayley-III), Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 (BOT-2), Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2), McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND), Neurological Sensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA), Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2) and Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2). Methodological quality varied from poor to excellent. Validity and internal consistency varied from fair to excellent (α=0.5–0.99). The Bayley-III, NSMDA and MABC-2 have evidence of predictive validity. Test–retest reliability is excellent in the BOT-2 (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.80–0.99), PDMS-2 (ICC=0.97), MABC-2 (ICC=0.83–0.96) and TGMD-2 (ICC=0.81–0.92). TGMD-2 has the highest inter-rater (ICC=0.88–0.93) and intrarater reliability (ICC=0.92–0.99).ConclusionsThe majority of gross motor assessments for children have good-excellent validity. Test–retest reliability is highest in the BOT-2, MABC-2, PDMS-2 and TGMD-2. The Bayley-III has the best predictive validity at 2 years of age for later motor outcome. None of the assessment tools demonstrate good evaluative validity. Further research on evaluative gross motor assessment tools are urgently needed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Draper ◽  
Simone A Tomaz ◽  
Caylee J Cook ◽  
Sasha S Jugdav ◽  
Candice Ramsammy ◽  
...  

Background: The International Study of Movement Behaviours in the Early Years, SUNRISE, was initiated to assess the extent to which young children meet movement behaviour guidelines (physical activity, sedentary behaviour, screen time, sleep). Objective: The South African SUNRISE pilot study assessed movement behaviours in preschool children from two low-income settings, and associations between these movement behaviours, adiposity, motor skills and executive function (EF). Methods: Preschool child/parent pairs (n = 89) were recruited from preschools in urban Soweto and rural Sweetwaters. Height and weight were measured to assess adiposity. Physical activity was assessed using accelerometers while sedentary behaviour, screen time and sleep were assessed via parent report. Fine and gross motor development were measured using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3, and EF was assessed using the Early Years Toolbox. Results: The proportion of children meeting the physical activity guideline was 84% , 66% met the sleep guideline ,48% met the screen time guideline , and 26% met all three guidelines. Rural children were more active, but spent more time on screens compared to urban children. Most children were on track for gross (96%) and fine motor (73%) development, and mean EF scores were in the expected range for all EF measures. EF was negatively associated with screen time, and gross motor skills were positively associated with physical activity. Conclusion: The South African SUNRISE study contributes to the growing literature on 24-hour movement behaviours in SA preschool children, and highlights that these behaviours require attention in this age group.


SAGE Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 215824402091953
Author(s):  
Meral Taner Derman ◽  
Elvan Şahin Zeteroğlu ◽  
Arzu Ergişi Birgül

There are previous studies in the literature conducted on the effect of play-based math activities on the mathematical skills, language, and cognitive development of preschool children. However, the number of studies conducted to determine the effect of play-based math activities on different areas of development in preschool children was too few. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of play-based math activities on different developmental areas (personal-social, fine motor, language, and gross motor development) of children 48 to 60 months of age. The pretest/posttest quasi-experimental research design with control and experimental groups was employed in this study. The research group of this study is composed of 45 children 22 of whom (10 girls and 12 boys) were in the experimental group and 23 (10 girls and 13 boys) in the control group. Denver II Developmental Screening Test was used as the data collection tool. As a result, it was determined that there was a significant difference between the subscales and pretest-posttest total scores concerning personal-social, fine motor, and language areas in the experimental group, while there was no statistically significant difference in the gross motor subscale. In addition, it was observed that there was statistically no significant difference between pretest–posttest scores concerning personal-social, fine motor, language, gross motor subscales and total scores of the control group. The result revealed that play-based math activities have a positive effect on personal-social, fine motor, language, and gross motor developments of children. Further studies can be planned to investigate the effects of play-based mathematics education integrated with different activities where children can have fun and be physically active on children’s developmental areas.


2015 ◽  
Vol 69 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 6911515228p1
Author(s):  
Laura L. Bellows ◽  
William J. Gavin ◽  
Susan L. Johnson ◽  
Richard E. Boles ◽  
Patricia Davies

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document