Perceptions and Adaptation Strategies in Fundamental Movement Skills Among Children With Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fundamental movement skills (FMS) are foundational to children's motor development and long-term participation in physical activity. However, standardized assessments often fail to capture the diverse abilities and lived experiences of children with physical disabilities. This qualitative study explored how these children perceive and perform FMS. Seventeen participants ages 3 to 10 took part in two sessions: one to assess their FMS using the Test of Gross Motor Development, the 3rd edition, and another to discuss their understanding of specific skills through an unstructured interview. Thematic analysis of verbal and non-verbal data revealed three key themes. First, children's knowledge, motivation, and perceived competence varied widely, influenced by age, fatigue and task familiarity. Younger children tended to show strong confidence, while older children were more self-critical. Second, children used a variety of motor, material, environmental, and contextual adaptation strategies to support FMS execution, often co-constructed with the research team. These adaptations reflected individual needs more than task-specific demands. Third, children focused more on outcomes than on movement quality and had difficulty assessing their own performance. Visual feedback and playful contexts supported engagement and self-awareness. These results highlight the need for inclusive, personalized approaches that integrate both process- and product-oriented perspectives and actively involve children in shaping their learning experience. Future research should investigate how such strategies can be integrated into children's everyday environments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".