4.6 Article

The Athletic Skills Track: Age- and gender-related normative values of a motor skills test for 4-to 12-year-old children

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 975-979

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.014

关键词

Physical education; Child; Motor skills; Physical activity; Motor competence test

资金

  1. Dutch National Science Organization (NWO) [9023.006.005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the presented study is to provide age- and gender-related normative values and MQ values for a motor skills test, the Athletic Skills Track, among 4- to 12-year-old children. Design: Cross-sectional. Methods: In 2016, a total of 7977 Dutch children, 4036 boys (mean age 8.6 years, SD 2.1) and 3941 girls (mean age 8.6 years, SD 2.1), performed an age-related version of the Athletic Skills Track (AST). The AST is a track consisting of 5-7 fundamental movement skill tasks that should be completed as fast as possible. The children performed the test during a regular physical education (PE) lesson under the supervision of their own PE teacher. For each version of the AST (AST-1: n = 917; AST-2: n = 3947; AST-3: n = 3213) age and gender-related reference centiles were derived from the gathered data using the Lambda, Mu, Sigma (LMS) method. Results: All children completed the AST within 60s (mean 29.6 s, SD 7.7). An independent samples t test showed that boys were significantly faster in completing the track than girls, except for the 4 year-old boys. Therefore, age- and gender-related reference centiles were derived. The reference curves demonstrate an almost linear decrease in time to complete AST-1 and AST-2 with increasing age. Conclusions: The present study provides age- and gender-related normative values and MQ values for the AST among 4- to 12-year-old Dutch children. With these normative values PE teachers can interpret children's performance on the AST. (C) 2018 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据