Children say the darndest things: physical activity and children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractBackground: Physical educators suggested that they are not well-informed about behaviors of children with disabilities, especially attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Children with ADHD represent a significant number of students in school systems worldwide who often experience difficulties in performing fundamental movement skills. Reasons for these challenging movement behaviors are not clearly understood. There were no significant effects of stimulant medication on performance of the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2) for 22 children with ADHD. Six boys with ADHD possessed superficial content knowledge about physical activity (PA) participation. Poor movement skills may be related to a mismatch between content knowledge and specific skill performance, which can be problematic at individual skill levels.Purpose: To explore how children with ADHD regulate PA participation by listening to PA stories.Participants and setting: Ten children with ADHD participated in this study. They were identified by qualified child psychiatrists from an ADHD clinic at a major mental health institute in a large urban Canadian city.Research design: A concurrent mixed methods design explored the PA experiences of the children. The qualitative data were given a higher priority.Data collection: The quantitative research component was individualized assessments of fundamental movement skills with the TGMD-2 and Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2. The qualitative research component included: (1) PA self-reporting where each child recorded daily experiences for a two week period and (2) concurrent scrapbook interviews that enhanced participant recall/reflection to generate rich discussions about individual PA experiences.Data analysis: Quantitative skill assessments provided movement-related descriptions of participants. Individual skill levels were labeled with normative test descriptors linked to each respective assessment instrument. These qualitized descriptors were mixed with interview data only after all movement skill assessments and scrapbook interviews were completed. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a within group thematic analysis was conducted.Findings: Many of the children demonstrated movement skill problems on both tests but skill performance was worse on the TGMD-2. Three qualitative themes emerged. The participants with ADHD spoke about their PA experiences in many different individual physical activities (play theme) and various settings (context theme). All children expressed personal wishes to be included in PA with other children in the community. A range of perceived self-regulatory behaviors emerged for planning PA (organization theme). The findings suggest some of the children with ADHD chose and organized their own PA while other children performed PA that was immediately in front of them with minimal organization of their PA behaviors.Conclusions: Children with ADHD told PA stories that many children without disabilities would tell. However, many of the children with the disorder described experiences related to exclusion from PA. They also lacked conceptual understanding of the purpose and goals related to general participation in various PA. Physical education teacher interventions, leisure counseling and community-based participatory research projects in PA are among the recommendations discussed for children with ADHD.Keywords: mixed methodsstimulated recall and reflectionADHDchildrenphysical activity experiences AcknowledgementsThis research project was funded through a standard research grant awarded by the Sport Canada – social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Sport Participation Research Initiative Program (grant number 862-2007-0005).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».