A window of opportunity? Motor skills and perceptions of competence of children in Kindergarten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to examine the relationship between motor skill proficiency and perceptions of competence of children in their first year of school. We also explored gender-based differences. FINDINGS: Participants were 260 kindergarten children (mean age = 5y 9 m; boys = 52%) from eight schools; representing 78% of eligible children in those schools. Motor skills were measured using the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 and perceptions of physical competence were assessed using the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children. Motor skill scores were generally low (percentile ranks ranged from 16 - 24) but perceptions of physical competence were positive (boys = 18.1/24.0, girls = 19.5/24.0). A MANOVA showed a significant overall effect for gender (Wilk's lambda = .84 with F (3, 254) = 15.84, p < 0.001) and univariate F tests were significant for all outcome variables. The relationship between object control skills and perceptions of physical competence among girls was not significant; however all other correlations were modest but significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although motor skill levels were quite low, the children generally held positive perceptions of their physical competence. These positive perceptions provide a window of opportunity for fostering skillfulness. The modest relationships between perceptions of competence and motor skill proficiency suggest that the children are beginning to make self-judgments at a young age. Accordingly, opportunities for children to become and feel physically competent need to occur early in their school or preschool life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".