Effects of the Practice of Team Sport or Individual Sport on Perceptual Abilities and on the Self-Esteem in the Persons with Motor Disability: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study comes in keeping with the impetus of the works that brought out the significant effects of the APSA practice on the global self-esteem and on the perceived physical value by the Spinal and Cord injured (Dias, Gerrnigon, & Ninot, 2009). It proposes, in a comparative perspective, to assess the effect of the practice of an individual sport versus a team sport on auditory, temporal, spatial and perceptual abilities as well as on the self-esteem in motor disabled persons. In other words, can these perceptual abilities and the self-esteem be regarded as acquirable skills among the motor disabled? The sample of our study consists of 112 able-bodied and tetraplegic subjects, and all of them are males, aged 18 - 24 years (M = 19.97) and divided into 5 groups: 4 experimental groups (N1: 18 motor disabled basketball players; N2: 23 motor disabled athletes; N3: 20 able-bodied basketball players; and N4: 20 able-bodied athletes) and a sample group (NT = 31). 3 tests measured the auditory perception (Legent, Bordure, Calais, & Malard, 2002), the time perception (Parlebas, 1986) and finally the space perception (Nyabenda, Briart, Deggouj, & Gersdorff, 2003). As for the self-esteem, it was measured by a PSD Questionnaire (Marsh & Yeung, 1998). It appears that the practice of team sport contributes more to the development of the auditory perception among the motor disabled persons. The difference between groups of motor disabled basketball players and motor disabled athletes was very significant. Test results in the perception of time and distance show a significant difference in favour of the motor disabled practitioners compared to the motor disabled practitioners. Moreover, the practice of a team or of an individual sport contributes more efficiently to the development of these two perceptual abilities, especially in the athletes with motor disability. Finally, the self-esteem is higher among the basketball players with motor disability. This study proposes an interesting hypothesis action to the sport interveners since it demonstrates that the practice of sport, as a socio-motor game, contributes to a better development of the self-esteem than as a psychomotor game among subjects with motor disability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".