The Qualitative Fundamental Motor Performance Characteristics of Preadolescent Obese Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the qualitative motor performance characteristics of 35 preadolescent obese children (18 female, 17 male) in the Midwest of the United States. An available sample of children ages six to 13 were classified as obese based on a BMI score of 30 or greater. The Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2)was used to assess all subjects. This test measures the qualitative motor ability of children using two subtest categories of fundamental motor skills including locomotors (running, hopping, skipping, jumping, leaping and galloping) as well as object control skills (throwing, catching, kicking, bouncing a ball, rolling a ball and striking). All participants received a raw score, standardized score, sum of standards and gross motor quotient score. All scores were compared to national norms established by the authors of the TGMD-2. The results indicated that the group norms of the obese children were significantly below the mean scores of the national average for all measures including locomotor standard scores (M=3.80, SD=2.44, p<0.001) and object-control standard scores(M=4.43, SD=2.89, p<0.001)and the gross motor development quotient (M=64.69, SD=15.05, p<0.001).The researchers concluded that the significantly lower motor performance scores of obese children may lead this population to participate less in health enhancing movement opportunities as they grow into adolescence and adulthood. The authors noted that the TGMD-2 is designed for children ages 3-10 and has a significant ceiling effect for older children. A younger population may reveal more robust conclusions in further study. Additionally, further study is recommended to determine whether programs aimed at lowering obesity levels in children can have an impact on qualitative fundamental motor skill performance
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".