A Group Motor Skills Program for Children with Coordination Difficulties: Effect on Fundamental Movement Skills and Physical Activity Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Children with coordination difficulties are at risk of low levels of physical activity (PA) participation. This intervention examined the effects of a multidisciplinary program that emphasized parent participation on motor skill performance and PA. METHODS: Ten boys (5-7 years) completed a group program consisting of conditioning exercises and activities designed to address child-selected goals. Motor proficiency and PA participation were assessed before and after the program using the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2) and triaxial accelerometers, respectively. Rating scales captured child and parent perceptions of performance for each child's goals. RESULTS: TGMD-2 subtest raw scores, age equivalent and percentile scores improved, along with parent ratings of their child's performance. Six children reported skill improvements. On average, moderate to vigorous PA improved by 10 min per day although these gains were not significant. Time spent in sedentary activities was unchanged. None of the children met the Canadian PA and sedentary behaviour guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The results support effectiveness of a group program to improve gross motor performance and levels of PA in children with coordination difficulties. Gains in both of these domains also have the potential to impact quality of life and reduce health risks associated with inactivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".