4.5 Article

Who can best report on children's motor competence: Parents, teachers, or the children themselves?

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE
卷 34, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.09.002

关键词

Motor competence; Perception; Childhood; Gender; Age

资金

  1. University of Valencia [UV-INV-AE16-471273]
  2. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte (Gobierno de Espana), Beca Jose Castillejo para jovenes doctores [CAS16/00048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: A positive perception of motor competence (MC) is important for children's health trajectory. It is purported that young children's perception is not well aligned with their actual ability. Alternative sources of perceptions are postulated from children's social context such as their parents or teachers. This study aims to analyse the associations among children's, parents' and Physical Education (PE) teachers' perception of children's MC and the children's actual MC, and whether these sources of information can report on children's actual MC. Design and method: A convenience sample of 139 typically developed children (48.2% girls) from six schools participated in this cross-sectional study. Actual and perceived MC was assessed by using the Test of Gross Motor Development and the Perceived Movement Skill Competence scale, respectively. Spear man's rho correlation and multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models were conducted. Results: Weak, weak-moderate and moderate positive associations were found between children's, parents' and PE teachers' reports and children's MC (p < 0.05), respectively. Children presented limited capability in explaining their actual MC. Parents' and PE teachers' proxy reports on children' MC were predictors of children's MC, with PE teachers best able to report on children's MC. Conclusion: Taking into account the resources needed to objectively assess children's actual MC, this study offers alternative sources of information for educators, researchers and/or therapists to assist in reporting children's actual MC. (C) 2017 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

4.5
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