Effects of motor skill interventions on fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities (ID) are characterised by deficits in fundamental movement skills (FMS). In youth with typical development, motor skill interventions have been recognised as an efficient means to improve FMS. However, the effects of these interventions among youth with ID have not yet been systematically reviewed. PURPOSE: The purpose of the present systematic review was to summarise the findings from studies pertaining to the effects of motor skill interventions designed to improve FMS in children and adolescents with ID. METHOD: A systematic literature search (without year restriction) was performed in 12 databases. Studies in press or published in English in a peer-reviewed journal were included if: (1) participants were youth with ID aged 5 to 22; (2) motor skill interventions aimed to improve one or several FMS; and (3) they were experimental, quasi-experimental or pre-experimental. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. RESULTS: Through the search strategy, 1083 articles were identified, and 14 studies published between 1969 and 2018 met the inclusion criteria. In studies with children, motor skill interventions successfully improved balance skills and overall FMS, whereas mixed and inconclusive results were found for locomotor skills. In studies with adolescents, motor skill interventions were shown to successfully improve balance skills. However, none of the motor skill interventions reviewed focused on locomotor and object control skills. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed motor skill interventions were effective in improving balance skills in both children and adolescents with ID as well as overall FMS in children with ID. Conversely, the effects of motor skill interventions targeting locomotor and object control skills remain unclear. Therefore, given the relatively small number of studies and their limitations, the present findings need to be interpreted with caution, and further rigorous studies are necessary.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".