Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review is a synthesis of studies concerning: (a) mastery, deficits, and/or delays in fundamental movement skills (FMS) among children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities; (b) comparisons of FMS between children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities and those with typical development (TD); and (c) correlates of FMS. METHOD: A systematic electronic search was performed in 12 databases. Seventeen studies, published between 1951 and 2017, met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Children with intellectual disabilities exhibited a lack of mastery and deficits/developmental delays in FMS. They tended to have significantly lower FMS performance than children with TD. Adolescents with intellectual disabilities had developmental delays in balance skills, but were not compared with adolescents with TD. Mastery or deficits in FMS were not explored. Several variables were significantly correlated with FMS among children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. CONCLUSION: In future studies, FMS should be examined as an important outcome among children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| 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".