Competency in Object Control Skills at an Early Age Benefit Future Movement Application: Longitudinal Data from the NW-CHILD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The level of competency in object control skills (OCSs) during early childhood is considered to be a possible determinant of the successful generalization of these skills during later childhood. This study aimed to determine if an association exists between competency in object control skills during early childhood (6–9 years) and the application of these skills during later childhood (12 years). The NW-CHILD longitudinal study (2010–2016), included a baseline and two time-point follow-up measures in grades 1, 4, and 7 of South African children. A total of 374 participants (boys = 178, 47.59% and girls = 196, 52.41%) completed testing at all three time-points and were analyzed. The Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition, and the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment were used to determine associations between object control skill competency during early and later childhood by using descriptive statistics, Spearman rank order correlations, and stepwise regression analysis. The level of object control skill competency at 6 and 9 years, significantly influences the application of these skills at 12 years. A high overall and significant contribution of OCS (4.6%, p < 0.01) to the variance in the skills and time scores at 12 years; p < 0.05 were found. Competence in object control skills at an early age can provide a baseline from where opportunities for progression or transfer of skills can result in more advanced skillful executions which consequently can be considered to be a cornerstone of improved future physical activity and healthier lifestyles.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".