Зависимости между някои двигателни и координационни способности на ръката при ученици в начална училищна възраст
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Манипулативните функции на ръката при децата от начална училищна възраст, определени чрез четири задачи от теста Teach Handwriting (Lamont, 2018), показват зависимост от пола и възрастта, както и увеличаване на степента на свързаност помежду си от седемгодишните към десетгодишните ученици. Библиография: Матанова, В., & Тодорова, Е. (2013). Ръководство за прилагане на методика за оценка на образователните потребности на децата и учениците. София: Институт за психично здраве и развитие. Ценова, Ц. (2014). Практическо ръководство по логоритмична терапия. София: Дита М България. Benbow, M. (1995). Assessment of hand skills in the primary child. Fairacres, NM, USA: Clinician’s View. https://www.worldcat.org/title/assessment-of-hand-skills-in-the-primary-child/oclc/840836311. Benbow, M. (1995). Neurokinesthetic Approach to Hand Function and Handwriting. Albuquerque, Understanding the Hand from the Inside-Out Developmental Activities Based on Hand Anatomy. https://www.clinicians-view.com/University/PDF/HF01/HF01TextPreview.pdf. Boyle, C. M. (2007). An analysis of the efficacy of a motor skills training programme for young people with Moderate Learning Difficulties. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 11–24. Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services Florida Department Education. (2012). Assessments of Functional Skills. Florida: State of Florida, Department of State. Case-Smith J., O'Brien J. C. (2010). Occupational Therapy for Children. 6th ed. Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 275-312. Cohen, E. J., Bravi, R., & Minciacchi, D. (2018). The effect of fidget spinners on fine motor control. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–9. Eather, N., Bull, A., Young, M. D., Barnes, A. T., Pollock, E. R., & Morgan, P. J. (2018). Fundamental movement skills: Where do girls fall short? A novel investigation of object-control skill execution in primary-school aged girls. Preventive Medicine Reports, 11(October 2017), 191–195. Exner C. E. (1992). In-hand manipulation skills. In: Case-smith J, Pehoski C. editors. Development of Hand Skills in the Child. Bethesda, MD, American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc, 35–40. Exner C. E. (1997). Clinical interpretation of in-hand manipulation in young children: translation of movements. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(9), 729-732. Gaul, D., & Issartel, J. (2016). Fine motor skill proficiency in typically developing children: On or off the maturation track? Human Movement Science, 46, 78–85. Gonzalez, S. L., Alvarez, V., & Nelson, E. L. (2019). Do Gross and Fine Motor Skills Differentially Contribute to Language Outcomes? A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(December), 1–16. Katyal P., Raja K. (2010). Development of a Test of In-Hand Manipulation for children. Journal of Hand Therapy, 23(4), 432–433. Lin, L. Y., Cherng, R. J., & Chen, Y. J. (2017). Effect of Touch Screen Tablet Use on Fine Motor Development of Young Children. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 37(5), 457–467. Miles Breslin D. M., Exner C. E. (1999). Construct validity of the IHM test: a discriminant analysis with children without disability and children with spastic diplegia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(4), 381–386. Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., Egan, M., DeLaat, D., Gaines, R., & Soucie, H. (2008). Enabling occupation through facilitating the diagnosis of Developmental Coordination Disorder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(1), 26–34. Moskowitz, B. H. (2008). What is the effectiveness of a task-oriented approach compared to a process-oriented approach on handwriting legibility among elementary school children? DOT-EBP, 49, 69–73. Pehosi C., Henderson A., Tickle-Degnen L. (1997). In-hand manipulation in young children: rotation of objects in the fingers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(7), 544-552. Pitchford, N. J., Papini, C., Outhwaite, L. A., & Gulliford, A. (2016). Fine motor skills predict maths ability better than they predict reading ability in the early primary school years. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(May), 1–17. Pont K., Wallen M., Bundy A. (2009). Conceptualising a modified system for classification of in-hand manipulation. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 56(1), 2–15. Sang-Min, S. (2018). The effect of fine motor skills on handwriting legibility in preschool age children. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 30(2), 324–327. Simpson, A., Al Ruwaili, R., Jolley, R., Leonard, H., Geeraert, N., & Riggs, K. J. (2019). Fine Motor Control Underlies the Association Between Response Inhibition and Drawing Skill in Early Development. Child Development, 90(3), 911–923. Souto, P. H. S., Santos, J. N., Leite, H. R., Hadders-Algra, M., Guedes, S. C., Nobre, J. N. P., ... Morais, R. L. de S. (2020). Tablet Use in Young Children is Associated with Advanced Fine Motor Skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 52(2), 196–203. Van Waelvelde, H., De Weerdt, W., De Cock, P., Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M., & Peersman, W. (2004). Ball Catching Performance in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21(4), 348–363. Visser M., Nel, M., Plessis C., Jacobs, S., Joubert, A., Muller, M., Smith B., Heerden T., Soest R. (2016). In-hand manipulation (IHM) in children 6 and 7 years of age: A follow-up study. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(2)1 52–58. Visser, M., Nel, M., Vries, J. de, Klopper, E., Olën, K., & Coller, J. van. (2014). In-hand manipulation of children aged four and five-years-old: translation, rotation and shift movements, in Bloemfontein. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44(2), 22–28.
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 | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».