Move to Improve: An 8-week, coach-led fundamental movement skill intervention for children with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Fundamental movement skills (FMS)—including locomotor, object control, and balance skills—are critical for participation in sports and physical activity. Children with intellectual disabilities (CwID) often exhibit lower motor skill proficiency compared to typically developing children: 1 – 3 SMDs, limiting their engagement in such activities. Addressing this gap aligns with the ISAPA 2025 theme of "Inclusivizing Our World" by promoting equitable access to skill development opportunities for all children. Despite the need, there is no established gold-standard intervention to improve FMS proficiency in CwID. Methodology 57 CwID (66% Male, mean age 8.1, SD = 2.1), participated in an 8-week, coach-led FMS intervention across 8 Special Olympics clubs in Ireland. Participants were cluster-randomized into control (n=16), FMS-only (n=25), and FMS+Parents (n=16) groups. Parents in the FMS + parents group received a PLAYshop workshop and were asked to do 10-15 minutes of FMS activities at home twice per week. FMS proficiency was assessed using TGMD-3 and BOT-2 pre- and post-intervention. Results Results showed significant improvements in locomotor and object control skills for the FMS+Parents group (e.g., object control: FMS-only Cohen’s d=0.64; Control d=0.71, p Conclusions Findings support an 8-week, coach led FMS intervention with parental involvement can significantly improve FMS proficiency, especially object control skills, of CwID compared to typical Special Olympics Club activity. Parents benefit from PLAYshop and can influence their children’s skill development in just 8 weeks. References Kavanagh, H., Manninen, M., & Issartel, J. (2023). Comparing the fundamental movement skill proficiency of children with intellectual disabilities and typically developing children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 67(12), 1336–1353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13012 Kavanagh, H., Manninen, M., Meegan, S., & Issartel, J. (2023b). Assessing the Fundamental Movement Skills of Children With Intellectual Disabilities in the Special Olympics Young Athletes Program. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly: APAQ, 41(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2022-0201 Lane, C., Carson, V., Morton, K., Reno, K., Wright, C., Predy, M., & Naylor, P.-J. (2021). A real-world feasibility study of the PLAYshop: A brief intervention to facilitate parent engagement in developing their child’s physical literacy. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 7(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-021-00849-5 Logan, S. W., Ross, S. M., Chee, K., Stodden, D. F., & Robinson, L. E. (2018). Fundamental motor skills: A systematic review of terminology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(7), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1340660 Valentini NC, Rudisill ME. An Inclusive Mastery Climate Intervention and the Motor Skill Development of Children with and Without Disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 2004 Oct;21(4):330–47.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".