Exploring the Development of Fundamental Movement Skills in Children With Physical Disabilities: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : Fundamental movement skills (FMS) are categorized into three groups (stability, locomotion, and object control) and are crucial for enabling the practice of physical activity in children with physical disabilities. Their development is influenced by the specific nature of each child’s disability. FMS can be evaluated by process- (movement execution) or product-oriented (movement outcome) assessments. This scoping review explored FMS development in children with physical disabilities and its relationship with physical activity. Method : Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews guidelines, the search was conducted across six databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, EMBASE and PsycINFO) and used keywords related to FMS, physical literacy, and physical disabilities. Articles were included if participants had physical disabilities, were aged between 3 and 18 years, and if they explored the relationship between FMS and physical activity and/or physical literacy. Results : Twenty-two studies were included. Both process- and product-oriented assessments reported lower FMS proficiency in children with physical disabilities. Older children demonstrated better proficiency. Most studies highlighted a significant relationship between FMS and physical activity. Conclusion : Enhanced knowledge of effective strategies and evidence-based practices will enable practitioners to create supportive environments, encourage active participation, and track progress, ultimately leading to improved motor skills and overall well-being in children.
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".