4.6 Article

A quick and qualitative assessment of gross motor development in preschool children

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 178, Issue 4, Pages 565-573

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-019-03327-6

Keywords

Zurich Neuromotor assessment; Quick and qualitative version; Gross motor skills

Categories

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [32003B_153273]
  2. Largo, Maiores and Giedion Risch Foundation
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32003B_153273] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is a need for a quick, qualitative, reliable, and easy tool to assess gross motor development for practitioners. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to present the Zurich Neuromotor Assessment-Q (ZNA-Q), which assesses static and dynamic balance in children between 3 and 6years of age in less than 5min. A total of 216 children (103 boys; 113 girls; median age 4years, 4months; interquartile range 1year, 3months) were enrolled from day-care centers, kindergartens, and schools, and were tested with 5 different gross motor tasks: standing on one leg, tandem stance, hopping on one leg, walking on a straight line, and jumping sideways. All ordinal measures (consisting of qualitative measures and scales) featured a marked developmental trend and substantial inter-individual variability. Test-retest reliability was assessed on 37 children. It varied from .17 for tandem stance to .43 for jumping sideways for the individual tasks, and it was .41 and .67 for the static and dynamic balance components, respectively. For the whole ZNA-Q, test-retest reliability was .7.Conclusion: Ordinal scales enable practitioners to gather data on children's gross motor development in a fast and uncomplicated way. It offers the practitioner with an instrument for the exploration of the current developmental motor status of the child.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available