Search

This study investigated the potential impact of a motor skill proficiency barrier on measures of cardiorespiratory (CRF) and musculoskeletal (MSF) fitness in youth. A sample of 241 youth (114 girls) aged 10 - 18 years, completed the Motor Competence Assessment battery with composite scores indexed according to age- and gender-adjusted percentile scores. Motor competence (MC) levels were categorized as low (≤ 25%tile – proficiency barrier), moderate (≥ 26%tile to < 75%tile), and high (≥ 75%tile). CRF levels (Health Risk, Needs Improvement, and Healthy) were assessed using the Fitnessgram® 20 m PACER test. Low (≤ 20%tile), moderate (≥ 21%tile to ≤ 80%tile), and high (≥ 80%tile) MSF levels were assessed using grip strength normative data. Two 3 × 3 chi-square tests were conducted to determine the probability of MC level predicting CRF and MSF levels. Results demonstrated statistically significant models for performance on both the PACER (χ2[4, N = 241] = 22.65, p <.001) and grip strength (χ2[4, N = 241] = 23.95, p <.001). Strong evidence of a proficiency barrier impacting CRF was noted, as no low skilled youth met the "Healthy" fitness zone standards for PACER performance. Evidence supporting a barrier with grip strength was not as strong, as 20.8% of youth exhibiting low MC displayed high grip strength. However, all individuals with high levels of MC demonstrated at least moderate grip strength. Results emphasize the importance of developing MC during childhood as it may provide a protective effect against unhealthy CRF and MSF across youth. Highlights These data support the notion of Seefeldt's (1980) proficiency barrier as it relates to CRF, as no youth demonstrating low MC met the healthy fitness zone criteria for PACER performance. The development of MC may both directly and indirectly provide a protective effect against unhealthy CRF levels across childhood and adolescence. Evidence supporting a proficiency barrier with MSF as measured by grip strength was not as strong; however, all individuals with high levels of MC demonstrated at least moderate grip strength. Thus, the development of MC may be a protective factor to mitigate low levels of MSF via enhanced neuromuscular function. Promoting the development of MC in a variety of developmentally appropriate activities and settings (e.g. MC skills practice, structured and unstructured play, and performance contexts) is important to promote positive trajectories of CRF and MSF across childhood and adolescence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measurement of motor competence is a vital process to advancing knowledge in the field of motor development. As motor competence is being more widely linked to research in other academic domains (e.g., public health, neuroscience, behavioral health), it is imperative that measurement methodology and protocols are reproducible with high degrees of validity and reliability. When addressing the plethora of available assessments, mostly developed for youth populations, there are potential questions and concerns that need to be addressed and/or clarified. One of the most prominent issues is the lack of a lifespan measure of motor competence, which is at odds with the premise of the field of motor development—studying changes in motor behavior across the lifespan. We address six areas of concern in lifespan assessment which include: (1) lack of assessment feasibility for conducting research with large samples, (2) lack of accountability for cultural significance of skills assessed, (3) limited sensitivity and discriminatory capabilities of assessments, (4) developmental and ecological validity limitations, (5) a problematic definition of 'success' in skill performance, and (6) task complexity and adaptability limitations. It is important to critically analyze current assessment methodologies as it will help us to envision the development and application of potential new assessments through a more comprehensive lens. Ultimately, we propose that reinvesting in how we think about assessment will be highly beneficial for integrating motor development from a holistic perspective, impact scientific advancements in other developmental domains, and increase global and lifespan surveillance of motor competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine children's energy expenditure (EE) during object projection skill performance at three intensity intervals. Methods: Children's (42, Mage = 8.1) average metabolic equivalents of task (METs) were calculated using a COSMED K4b2 while they repeatedly performed blocks of kicking, throwing (overhand), and striking (two-handed) during 6, 12, and 30-s interval conditions. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance examined differences in METs while controlling for skill level. Results: Data indicated a main effect for interval condition (df = 2, 123, F = 94.36, p <.001, η2 =.605). Post hoc t-tests demonstrated decreasing performance interval times yielded progressively higher METs (p <.001) across the three conditions (30s = 4.5±0.8 METs, 12s = 6.3±1.3, 6s = 8.3±1.6). There also was a main effect for sex (df = 1,120, F = 52.28, p <.001 η2 =.305). Boys demonstrated higher METs at each performance interval (p <.001). Conclusion: Skill practice with a maximum of one trial every 30s resulted in the equivalent of at least moderate physical activity (>4.0 METs) and intervals of 6s demonstrated vigorous physical activity (>7.0 METs). Practicing/performing object projection skills, even at intervals that allow for adequate instruction and feedback (i.e., 1 trial/30s), promotes MVPA in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared the energy expenditure (EE) levels during object projection skill performance (OPSP) as assessed by indirect calorimetry and accelerometry. Thirty-four adults (female n = 18) aged 18–30 (23.5 ± 2.5 years) performed three, 9-min sessions of kicking, over-arm throwing, and striking performed at 6-, 12-, and 30-sec intervals. EE was estimated (METS) using indirect calorimetry (COSMED K4b2) and hip-worn accelerometry (ActiGraph GT3X+). EE using indirect calorimetry demonstrated moderate-intensity physical activity (3.4 ± 0.7 METS––30-sec interval, 5.8 ± 1.2 METS––12-sec interval) to vigorous intensity physical activity (8.3 ± 1.7 METS––6-sec interval). However, accelerometry predicted EE suggested only light-intensity physical activity (1.7 ± 0.2 METS––30-sec interval, 2.2 ± 0.4 METS––12-sec interval, 2.7 ± 0.6 METS––6-sec interval). Hip-worn, ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers do not adequately capture physical activity intensity levels during OPSP, regardless of differences in skill performance intervals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]