Motor Skills are More Strongly Associated to Academic Performance for Girls Than Boys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the contribution of fine and gross motor skills to academic and attentional performance at school entry among 832 boys and girls. Children were tested on their fine and gross motor skills (locomotor, object control) and their academic performance in receptive vocabulary, number knowledge, and attentional skills at 6 to 7 years old. Results from ordinary least square models adjusted for family income, maternal education attainment, and early cognitive skills at 41 to 48 months revealed that fine motor skills significantly predicted receptive vocabulary, number knowledge, and attention skills. The associations between fine motor skills with receptive vocabulary and attention were stronger for girls than boys. Better performance in locomotor also significantly predicted higher levels of receptive vocabulary while object control was positively associated with attentional skills among girls only. Children with better motor abilities, especially fine motor skills, are more likely to be successful in the areas requiring language, numeracy, and attentional skills. Thus, motor skills should be a focus of interest for increasing academic and attentional skills level at school entry, particularly in girls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".