Fundamental movement skill proficiency amongst adolescent youth

Abstract

Background: Literature suggests that physical education programmes ought to provide intense instruction towards basic movement skills needed to enjoy a variety of physical activities. Fundamental movement skills (FMS) are basic observable patterns of behaviour present from childhood to adulthood (e.g. run, skip and kick). Recent evidence indicates that children have the developmental potential to master most FMS by 6 years of age during physical education, physical activity (PA) and sport.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cpes20
Download by: [University College Cork] Date: 03 November 2016, At: 06:47
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
ISSN: 1740-8989 (Print) 1742-5786 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20
Fundamental movement skill proficiency amongst
adolescent youth
Wesley O’ Brien, Sarahjane Belton & Johann Issartel
To cite this article: Wesley O’ Brien, Sarahjane Belton & Johann Issartel (2016) Fundamental
movement skill proficiency amongst adolescent youth, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
21:6, 557-571, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1017451
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1017451
Published online: 27 Feb 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 521
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Fundamental movement skill proficiency amongst adolescent youth
Wesley O’ Brien
a
∗, Sarahjane Belton
b
and Johann Issartel
b
a
School of Education, Sports Studies and Physical Education Department, University College
Cork, 2 Lucan Place, Western Road, Cork, Ireland;
b
The Physical Activity, Physical Education
and Health (PAPEH) Research Cluster, Youth Physical Activity Towards Health (Y-PATH), School
of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
(Received 27 February 2013; accepted 16 December 2014)
Background: Literature suggests that physical education programmes ought to provide
intense instruction towards basic movement skills needed to enjoy a variety of physical
activities. Fundamental movement skills (FMS) are basic observable patterns of
behaviour present from childhood to adulthood (e.g. run, skip and kick). Recent
evidence indicates that children have the developmental potential to master most
FMS by 6 years of age during physical education, physical activity (PA) and sport.
Purpose: With a noticeable absence in the literature relating to adolescent movement
patterns, the present study assessed the performance of 9 FMS during physical
education class amongst 12- to 13-year olds. The study further assessed the range of
FMS at the behavioural component level with a view to identifying weaknesses
within performance across individual skills.
Participants and setting: Baseline data were collected in 2010 as part of a larger
longitudinal study evaluating the effectiveness of a prescribed adolescent physical
education intervention. Participants included all (N¼242) first-year post-primary
youth in a specific geographical area of Ireland.
Data collection: The following 9 FMS were assessed during an 80-minute physical
education lesson time period using a reliable instrument protocol; run, skip,
horizontal jump, vertical jump, kick, catch, overhand throw, strike and stationary
dribble. Each of the nine FMS was assessed in conjunction with the behavioural
components from three established instruments, namely the Test of Gross Motor
Development (TGMD), TGMD-2 and the Victorian Fundamental Motor Skills
manual. To ensure participant consistency, no feedback from any of the trained field
staff was given during skill performance.
Data analysis: Prior to data analysis, the trained field staff were required to reach a
minimum of 95% inter-observer agreement for all nine skills on a pre-coded data set
to ensure that all testers were competent. The FMS data set was analysed using SPSS
version 17.0 for Windows using appropriate statistical analysis.
Findings: Overall, 11% was scored as either mastery or near mastery for all nine FMS.
There was a significant difference in the overall mean composite FMS score (object
control and locomotor) between genders, with adolescent males scoring higher (p¼
.015). There were marked differences in the number of participants who failed to
obtain mastery level across the range of the nine FMS (e.g. vertical jump 87% and
run 13%) and their associated behavioural components.
Conclusions: It is alarming that adolescents aged between 12 and 13 years entering their
first year of post-primary physical education do not display proficiency across nine basic
movement patterns. This finding indicates that adolescents may have a difficult time in
making the successful transition towards more advanced skills within the sport-specific
stage. Implications from this study potentially indicate that targeting the weakest skill
#2015 Association for Physical Education
∗Corresponding author. Email: wesley.obrien@ucc.ie
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2016
Vol. 21, No. 6, 557–571, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1017451

components during physical education and outside of school hours may prove a valuable
strategy in increasing the current FMS levels and the subsequent PA levels amongst
adolescent youth.
Keywords: physical education; adolescent; fundamental movement skill; mastery;
physical activity
Introduction
Dating as far back as 1995, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education
(NASPE) in the USA defined that the physically educated individual should be able to
demonstrate competency in many movement forms for the development of motor skills
(NASPE 1995). Furthermore, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
Secretary of Education (2000) emphasized that quality physical education programmes
ought to provide intense instruction towards motor skills needed to enjoy a variety of
physical activities. When investigating the importance of teaching physical education,
Tsangaridou (2012) emphasized the positive contribution of fundamental movement
skills (FMS) in supporting the development of social, cognitive and affective skills.
Whilst there is an absence of scientific evidence in the Irish context, specifically relating
to childhood motor skill development, recently published data (Belton et al. 2014;
O’ Brien, Issartel, and Belton 2013) highlighted the significant positive effects of teaching
FMS through the medium of post-primary physical education. Despite the recent emphasis
towards motor development in the physical education environment, the importance of
movement is sometimes overlooked as it is perceived as a natural part of life (Cools
et al. 2009). Physical growth and movement experiences of the child play a significant
role in shaping patterns of movement; if deficiencies in FMS are not identified at an
early age, children may experience lifelong problems with movement skills (Ulrich 2000).
Basic observable patterns of behaviour and movement present from childhood are
known as FMS; the skills include running, hopping, skipping (locomotor), balancing, twist-
ing, dodging (stability), throwing, catching and kicking (object control) (Department of
Education Victoria 1996; Gallahue and Ozmun 2006). Indeed, the concept of motor devel-
opment during childhood has gained steady momentum since 1960 (Gallahue, Ozmun, and
Goodway 2012), with particular research focusing on the acquisition of mature fundamental
movement patterns, specifically the characteristics, mechanisms and behavioural
components of FMS (Halverson and Roberton 1966; Seefeldt and Haubenstricker 1982;
Wickstrom 1983). Whilst current research would suggest that few comprehensive theoreti-
cal models of skill classification exist, historically, the study of childhood motor develop-
ment has shaped the age-related, instructional ‘hourglass’ approach by Gallahue and
Ozmun (2006). The proposed theoretical model, specifically the well-established triangu-
lated hourglass model (Gallahue and Ozmun 2006), is a helpful heuristic device for concep-
tualizing, describing and explaining the age-related, but not age determined, process of
motor development. The following developmental stages of motor development exist,
namely the reflexive movement phase (4 months to 1 year old), rudimentary movement
phase (1–2 years old), fundamental movement phase (2 – 7 years old) and the specialized
movement phase (7 years old and up) (Gallahue and Ozmun 2006). Children at the funda-
mental movement stage (2 – 7 years old) are building upon previously learned movements
from the reflexive and rudimentary movement phases and are preparing for the acquisition
of more advanced skills within the sport-specific stage (Department of Education Victoria
1996; Gallahue and Ozmun 2006). Children have the developmental potential to master
most of the FMS by the age of 6 years (Gallahue and Ozmun 2006). Research
558 W. O’ Brien et al.

commissioned by the Department of Education Victoria (1996) found that all FMS can be
mastered by 10– 11 years. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that adolescent youth (12 –
13 years) should demonstrate competency in FMS during physical education at second-
level school.
It is important to note that these basic movement patterns are not acquired naturally
during the process of maturation (Hardy et al. 2010a). Movement practitioners need to
structure and implement developmentally appropriate activities, specifically teaching
and learning (with feedback) during physical education with continuous provision for
opportunities of practice available (Logan et al. 2011). Recent research highlights that
children and adolescent youth are not performing FMS to their expected developmental
capability. For example, a previous examination (Goodway, Robinson, and Crowe 2010)
of gender differences in FMS proficiency amongst disadvantaged preschoolers (N¼469)
from two geographical regions in the USA observed that 86% of children demonstrated
developmental delays below the 30th percentile for same-age peers (Ulrich 2000). In
2003, a pretest FMS study (Goodway, Crowe, and Ward 2003) in southern USA
observed that between 87% and 95% of preschool children (N¼63) demonstrated devel-
opmental delays at or below the 25th percentile for same-age peers (Ulrich 2000). The
Australian New South Wales School Nutrition and Physical Activity Study (Hardy
et al. 2010b) documented low percentage of early adolescent youth (11 – 12 years)
achieving skill mastery across a range of seven FMS. Skill mastery did not exceed
40% for five of the seven FMS in this study. Further Australian research by Booth
et al. (1999) reported that skill mastery did not exceed 40% for five of the six FMS
amongst children and adolescent youth (9 – 15 years) in New South Wales. More specifi-
cally, in the greater Waikato region of New Zealand, Mitchell et al. (2013) indicated at
baseline that less than half of the children and early adolescents (5– 13 years) exhibited
proficiency in kicking (21%), throwing (31%) and striking (40%). In other countries,
similar trends have been observed; for example, in an Irish context results from a phys-
ical education study (O’Keeffe, Harrison, and Smyth 2007) indicated that fundamental
overarm throwing amongst adolescent youth (15 – 16 years) was low. The FMS profi-
ciency of Hong Kong children (Pang and Fong 2009)(N¼167, mean age 7.6 years)
is, however, slightly higher than that in other reported studies (Booth et al. 1999;
Hardy et al. 2010b; Mitchell et al. 2013) with 24% of participants achieving mastery
across a range of 12 FMS. The evidence would suggest that while levels of FMS vary
from country to country, performance levels remain consistently low with the majority
of children and adolescents failing to surpass 50% mastery in most skills. Globally,
there is a need to improve the skill proficiency levels of both children and adolescents
(Van Beurden et al. 2002).
Each gross motor skill includes several behavioural components deemed necessary for
successful skill completion (e.g. Ulrich). These behavioural components are often presented
as performance criteria (Ulrich 2000) and such behaviours represent a mature pattern of the
skill. Identifying potential weaknesses at behavioural component level will allow research-
ers to address more precisely the low level of motor skill proficiency (Okely and Booth
2004; Van Beurden et al. 2002). Whilst there are numerous data available in relation to
overall levels of skill mastery, there is a lack of data documenting the skill proficiency at
the component level of performance. Many of these components are often interrelated
across the range of FMS, which if analysed may allow researchers to identify emergent
trends of similar motor skill deficiency. Hence, skill analysis at the behavioural component
level may assist movement practitioners in improving FMS proficiency through targeted
intervention programmes.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 559

The global priority for developing motor skill competence and FMS proficiency is
further reinforced by the positive associations with habitual levels of childhood physical
activity (PA) (Barnett et al. 2009; Fisher et al. 2005; Okely, Booth, and Patterson 2001a,
2001b) and physical fitness into adulthood (Stodden, Langendorfer, and Roberton 2009).
For example, cross-sectional research found that high levels of motor skill proficiency
were associated with greater play activity in 8 –11-year-old males (Harten, Olds, and
Dollman 2008). Furthermore, Jaakkola and Washington (2012) found an association
between FMS and PA during adolescence. Irish research highlights that only 12% of
Irish post-primary school children (12 – 18 years) meet current PA guidelines for health
(Woods et al. 2010) despite the compelling scientific evidence that regular PA reduces
the risk of premature mortality (Nelson and Woods 2009). The NASPE in America empha-
sizes the need for both males and females to demonstrate FMS proficiently to perform a
variety of physical activities necessary for health benefits such as cardiovascular endurance
and muscular strength (McCall and Craft 2004). Ennis’s (2010) work on preparing students
for a lifetime of PA engagement further emphasizes that the acquisition of motor skills (skil-
fulness) allows adults to participate in diverse activities across the lifespan.
Gender differences across the age spectrum (3 – 16 years) in terms of FMS proficiency
do exist (Breslin et al. 2012; Cliff et al. 2009; Hardy et al. 2010a). Recent research (Hume
et al. 2008) illustrates 9– 12-year-old male superiority within the FMS subtest domains of
the kick, overhand throw and two-handed strike; however, poor performances in both the
vertical jump and the run were observed amongst male (49.6%) and female (50.4%) partici-
pants. Maturation factors, such as the development of secondary sex characteristics and
growth spurts, may contribute to gender differences in motor skill proficiency during
puberty (Haywood and Getchell 2009). Longitudinal research highlights that male children
and adolescent youth possess significantly higher object control skills than females,
although the gender divide is not as clear within the locomotor subtest (Barnett et al.
2010). This gender differentiation within FMS highlights that additional support through
potential physical education interventions is paramount to facilitate females’ development
of object control skills.
Advancing towards the specialized movement phase within the stages of motor devel-
opment depends on the maturity level of FMS development (Department of Education
Victoria 1996; Gallahue and Ozmun 2006). Adolescent motor skill proficiency is a decisive
factor in the subsequent outgrowth of the FMS phase. There has been considerable research
carried out examining the movement skill execution of children internationally (Barnett
et al. 2009; Fisher et al. 2005; Goodway, Crowe, and Ward 2003; Okely, Booth, and Pat-
terson 2001a,2001b) with a noticeable depletion and absence in the literature specifically
relating to adolescent movement patterns, precision and skill performance. The present
study assessed the performance of nine FMS in a sample of 12 – 13-year-old Irish adolescent
youth during a physical education class period. The study further assessed the range of
FMS at the behavioural component level of performance with the objective to identify
weaknesses within performance, and commonality of these weaknesses across skills.
Methods
Overview
Cross-sectional data were collected as part of a larger longitudinal study evaluating the
effectiveness of a prescribed adolescent physical education intervention entitled the
‘Youth Physical Activity Towards Health’ (Y-PATH) programme (Belton et al. 2014;O’
560 W. O’ Brien et al.

Brien 2013; O’ Brien, Issartel, and Belton 2013). Participants (N¼242) were conveniently
sampled from schools in a typical Irish town in the province of Leinster. Eligibility criteria
included all first-year students (12 – 13 years) located within a specific geographical sector.
Data were collected at the beginning of the school term. Ethical approval was obtained from
the University Research Ethics Committee (DCUREC/2010/081). Approval from the
participating schools was granted from each of the associated principals.
Measures
During the course of one typical school week, at the beginning of September, the following
nine FMS were assessed in an 80-minute physical education period: run, skip, horizontal
jump and vertical jump (locomotor); and kick, catch, overhand throw, strike and stationary
dribble (object control). This cross-sectional investigation focused exclusively on the raw
scores across the selected nine FMS. Each of the nine gross motor skills was assessed in
conjunction with the behavioural components from three established instruments: Test of
Gross Motor Development (TGMD; skip), TGMD-2 (run, horizontal jump, kick, catch,
overhand throw, strike and stationary dribble) (Ulrich 1985,2000) and the Victorian
Fundamental Motor Skills manual (vertical jump) (Department of Education Victoria
1996). Having been normed on a sample of 1208 people in the USA, the TGMD-2 assess-
ment has a high degree of reliability and established construct validity (Cools et al. 2009;
Evaggelinou, Tsigilis, and Papa 2002; Wong and Cheung 2010). Similar reliability and con-
struct validity have been obtained for the vertical jump (Department of Education Victoria
1996) and the skip (Ulrich 1985). These two skills were also included in the analysis due to
their specificity within the Irish youth sporting framework and physical education environ-
ment (namely the athletics, dance, games and gymnastics strands); these skills are two of
the core FMS applied to the Irish national sporting games of Hurling and Gaelic Football.
For example in both games, when jumping to catch a sliotar (hurling ball) or a football,
players perform an action which involves modified versions of the fundamental skills of
skip and vertical jump. To ensure that adolescent performance was constant over time
across the nine selected FMS, the research team conducted a 48-hour time sampling
test– retest reliability measurement amongst a sample of 35 participants aged 12 – 13
years. The coefficients reached 0.87, indicating that the scores across the nine skills were
stable over time.
Data collection
During data collection in physical education class time, participants were allocated numeri-
cal codes for anonymity purposes. Prior to participant performance, trained field staff
members provided an accurate demonstration and instruction of the skill to be performed.
Without using any verbal feedback, trained field staff provided one visual demonstration of
the skill at each station. For instance, with the catch skill, trained field staff visually demon-
strated ‘hands in front of the body’ as the preparatory feature, followed by ‘arms extending
while reaching for the ball’, then ‘catching the ball with hands only’, etc. If the participant
was uncertain of the task, one additional demonstration was performed by the trained FMS
researcher in the physical education hall. To ensure participant consistency, no feedback
from any of the trained field staff was given during skill performance. All participants at
each FMS station (maximum five participants at one time) received a familiarization prac-
tice trial to ensure they understood what to do. Each participant was then video recorded at
each of the four stations simultaneously (using 4 ×Canon-type Legria FS21 cameras)
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 561

during each skill on two test trials. The distance and camera angles were at all times
consistent, specifically to ensure that the complete body movement for specific skill
components were captured. Each of the individual FMS was later analysed by at least
two trained researchers.
Data scoring
All data collection assistants, who were in their final year of a physical education teacher
training degree, attended two training workshops in the PA Research Unit at the University
to gain competence in the skill administration and associated equipment set-up. Prior to data
analysis, the trained field staff members were required to reach a minimum of 95% inter-
observer agreement for all nine skills on a pre-coded data set to ensure that all testers
were competent.
The number of performance criterion varied from 3 to 6 across the range of selected
FMS; all participants were given a ‘1’ for correct execution of a criterion and a ‘0’ for a
failure on a criterion. For each FMS, the two test trials were added together to get the
total for each skill score. There were a total of 74 performance criteria for all nine gross
motor skills. The FMS scoring process was completed at a later phase (post-data collection)
by the field staff. Data were normalized prior to analysis; total object control and locomotor
score were standardized to a score of 1 so equal weighting could be applied to both vari-
ables during subtest comparison.
Data analysis
The FMS data set was analysed using SPSS version 17.0 for Windows. Descriptive stat-
istics and frequencies for FMS and their associated behavioural components (Table 2)
were calculated. ‘Mastery’ was defined as correct performance of all skill components on
both trials. ‘Near Mastery’ was defined as correct performance of all components but
one on both trials (Van Beurden et al. 2002). ‘Poor’ was any score below these two cat-
egories (i.e. if the performance was incorrect in two or more of the components on both
trials). A binary variable composed of mastery and near mastery was created for each
skill and is reported in the paper as ‘advanced skill proficiency’ (Booth et al. 2005). Raw
scores for individual FMS total were collapsed into categorical variables with mastery/
near mastery coded as ‘1’ and poor coded as ‘0’. The difference between overall object
control (overarm throw, catch, kick, strike and stationary dribble) and locomotor (run, ver-
tical jump, horizontal jump and skip) proficiency was analysed through a paired sample
t-test. Gender differences in individual FMS performances were analysed using indepen-
dent sample t-tests. Chi-square tests for independence identified if percentage skill differ-
ences in advanced skill proficiency by gender existed. Statistical significance was set at
p,.05.
Results
Active parental consent and child assent (N¼242) were requirements for eligible partici-
pants in this study (84% of total sample). Only those who had fully available FMS data for
each of the nine skills during physical education were analysed; therefore, the final sample
consisted of 223 participants (55.2% male, 12.50 +0.52 years and 44.8% female, 12.32
+0.49 years). Overall 11% of children were scored at the advanced skill proficiency
level for all nine FMS. Only one participant possessed complete mastery level across all
562 W. O’ Brien et al.

nine object-related and locomotor movement skills. A paired sample t-test showed a signifi-
cantly lower overall mean score for locomotor performance compared to object-related per-
formance; t(222) ¼8.073, p,.001. With the exception of the run, advanced skill
proficiency was lower (Figure 1) in the locomotor subtest skills compared to the object
control subtest skills. The highest skill performance was the catch with 68% achieving
mastery and 31% achieving near mastery (Figure 1).
The poorest performances were for the vertical and horizontal jumps (locomotor),
where 13% and 29%, respectively, achieved mastery and 10% and 28% achieved near
mastery. The mean skill score, standard deviation (SD) and prevalence (in percentage) of
mastery amongst males and females are shown in Table 1.
There was a significant difference in the mean composite FMS score (total object
control and locomotor) between genders, with males scoring higher; t(221) ¼2.454,
p,.05. An independent t-test showed that male participants obtained an overall higher
object control score compared to females; t(221) ¼3.382, p,.01. There was no gender
difference in the overall locomotor (p.0.05) mean score performance; females outper-
formed males with significantly higher advanced skill proficiency in the skip
(
x
2
skip =19.084 , p,.001). Males did, however, display higher advanced skill proficiency
in the overhand throw (
x
2
throw =18.57, p,.001), run (
x
2
run =7204, p¼.007) and hori-
zontal jump (
x
2
horizontal jump =16.603, p,.001).
Table 2 highlights the percentage of participants below mastery level in each of the be-
havioural components across the nine selected FMS.
Overall, the vertical jump (23% advanced skill proficiency) was the poorest performed
skill amongst the cohort (Figure 1). When this was analysed in further detail, it was found
that a higher proportion of participants failed (86.1% and 88.7%, respectively) to execute
behavioural components 2 (crouching with the knees bent and arms behind the body)
and 3 (forcefully swinging the arms upright). When investigating the proportion of partici-
pants not at mastery level in the horizontal jump, behavioural components 1 (flexion of both
knees with arms extended behind body) and 2 (arms extend forcefully forward and upward)
posed most difficulty for participants (69.2% and 73.6%). In respect to the horizontal and
vertical jump, a large proportion of participants were unable to demonstrate mastery of the
Figure 1. Percentage of advanced skill proficiency of 12–14-year-old participants (N¼223).
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 563

behavioural components which involved coordinating arm and leg movements. Similarly,
99% of participants who failed to master the skip were unable to execute contralateral
arm and leg movements proficiently (behavioural component 3).
In the object control subtest (catch, kick, overhand throw, strike and stationary dribble),
advanced skill proficiency was high ranging from 83% to 99% across the five skills (Figure
1). All participants who did not master the catch (32%) failed on behavioural component 3
(ball is caught by hands only). In the stationary dribble, 64.4% of participants not at the
mastery level (N¼87) were unable to contact the ball with one hand at about belt level.
Close to half of the participants (47.8%) who did not master the strike (N¼115) failed
on behavioural component 5 (make contact with the ball using a bat).
Discussion
Findings from this study highlight that only 11% of participants possess advanced skill pro-
ficiency across a range of basic FMS. This indicates that overall skill execution is low
amongst adolescent youth (12– 13 years). Results from this cohort indicate that only one
participant was fundamentally competent across all the nine object-related and locomotor
skills despite children having the developmental capacity to become fundamentally compe-
tent by six years of age (Gallahue and Ozmun 2006). Previous research outside of Ireland
Table 1. Mean (SD) score, prevalence (%) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of mastery of
FMS amongst males (N¼123) and females (N¼100).
FMS
Score (M +SD) Mastery (%, 95% CI)
Males Females p-Value Males Females
Locomotor skills
Run 7.92 (0.40) 7.45 (1.09) .0005∗∗ 95.1% (89.2, 98) 76% (66.2, 83.7)
Skip 3.67 (1.36) 4.18 (0.95) .002∗∗ 10.6% (6, 17.7) 11% (6, 19.2)
Horizontal
jump
6.30 (1.64) 5.22 (1.93) .0005∗∗ 35.8% (27.5, 45) 20% (12.9, 29.4)
Vertical jump 7.46 (2.68) 7.94 (2.00) .136 13.8% (8.5, 21.5) 12% (6.6, 20.4)
Subtest score
(max score ¼
34)
25.35 (4.17) 24.79 (3.94) .308
Object control skills
Catch 5.57 (0.82) 5.55 (0.66) .850 70.7% (61.7, 78.4) 64% (53.7, 73.2)
Overhand throw 7.08 (1.33) 6.00 (1.58) .0005∗∗ 60.2% (50.9, 68.8) 27% (18.9, 36.7)
Stationary
dribble
7.05 (1.62) 6.87 (1.55) .404 65.9% (56.7, 74) 55% (44.8, 64.9)
Strike 9.05 (0.94) 9.25 (0.99) .122 43.1% (34.3, 52.3) 55% (44.8, 64.9)
Kick 7.80 (0.52) 7.64 (0.76) .057 86.2% (78.5, 91.5) 78% (68.4, 85.4)
Subtest score
(max score ¼
40)
36.55 (2.62) 35.31 (2.86) .001∗∗
FMS total (N¼9)
Total FMS
score (max
score ¼74)
61.90 (5.52) 60.10 (5.38) .015∗∗
Note: Table 1 presents raw scores for each of the nine FMS. For the purpose of statistical analysis, data were
standardized to a score of ‘1’ to provide equal weighting to variables.
∗∗p,.05
564 W. O’ Brien et al.

Table 2. Prevalence of failure amongst participants below mastery level (%) in each of the nine FMS
behavioural components.
(%)
Failure
Run
(1) Arms move in opposition to legs, elbows bent 63.3
(2) Brief period where both feet are off the ground 0
(3) Narrow foot placement landing on heel or toe 13.3
(4) Non-support leg bent approximately 90866.7
Skip
(1) A rhythmical repetition of the step-hop on alternate feet 20.6
(2) Foot of non-support leg carried near surface during the hop phase 9.5
(3) Arms alternately moving in opposition to legs at about the waist level 99
Horizontal jump
(1) Preparatory movement includes flexion of both knees with arms extended behind
body
69.2
(2) Arms extend forcefully forward and upward reaching full extension above the
head
73.6
(3) Take off and land on both feet simultaneously 34
(4) Arms thrust downward during landing 2.5
Vertical jump
(1) Eyes focused forward or upward throughout 18.6
(2) Crouch with knees bent. Arms behind the body 86.1
(3) Forceful forward and upward swing of arms 88.7
(4) Legs straighten in air 19.1
(5) Land on balls of feet. Bend knees to absorb land 33.5
(6) Controlled landing with ≤1 step any direction 2.6
Catch
(1) Preparation phase where hands are in front of the body and elbows are flexed 4.2
(2) Arms extend while reaching for the ball as it arrives 1.4
(3) Ball is caught by hands only 100
Overhand throw
(1) Wind-up is initiated with downward movement of hand/arm 67.2
(2) Rotates hip and shoulder to a point where the non-throwing side faces the wall 37.7
(3) Weight is transferred by stepping with the foot opposite the throwing hand 22.1
(4) Follow-through beyond ball release diagonally across the body towards the non-
preferred side
10.7
Stationary dribble
(1) Contacts ball with one hand at about the belt level 64.4
(2) Pushes ball with fingertips (not a slap) 27.6
(3) Ball contacts surface in front of or to the outside of foot on the preferred side 52.9
(4) Maintains control of ball for four consecutive bounces without having to move the
feet to retrieve it
5.7
Striking a stationary ball
(1) Dominant hand grips bat above non-dominant hand 43.5
(2) Non-preferred side of body faces the imaginary tosser with feet parallel 3.5
(3) Hip and shoulder rotation during swing 4.3
(4) Transfers body weight to front foot 15.7
(5) Bat contacts ball 47.8
Kick
(1) Rapid continuous approach to the ball 5.1
(2) An elongated stride or leap immediately prior to ball contact 89.7
(3) Non-kicking foot placed even with or slightly in back of the ball 15.4
(4) Kicks ball with instep of preferred foot (shoelaces) or toe 0
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 565

examining the FMS proficiency of children and youth support this low level of FMS
mastery (Foweather et al. 2008; Okely and Booth 2004). Whilst much of the international
research on FMS consistently reports low levels of skill execution during childhood, the
present study further indicates that Irish adolescents’ FMS proficiency is generally even
lower.
It must be noted that poor scores in the vertical jump (23% advanced skill proficiency)
considerably reduced the percentage achieving higher levels of overall advanced skill pro-
ficiency. One hundred and ninety-four participants (87%) did not achieve mastery level in
this locomotor skill. There were six performance criteria deemed necessary for mastery
within the vertical jump; it can be argued, therefore, that the likelihood to fail on a given
behavioural component was twice as likely in the vertical jump compared to the catch
and skip which both had only three performance criteria. Had the vertical jump not been
included in the analysis, 30.5% (N¼68) of the participants would have displayed
advanced skill proficiency (across the remaining eight skills). These findings for the low
prevalence of vertical jump proficiency amongst participants are in line with a study by
Hume et al. (2008) across 9– 12-year-old children. This comparative study observed that
20.3% of male and 24.0% of female participants obtained advanced skill proficiency in
the vertical jump (Hume et al. 2008). This compares with 24.4% of males and 21.0% of
females obtaining overall advanced skill proficiency in the vertical jump in the current
study. It would appear from the present Irish investigation and previous Australian research
of Hume et al. (2008) that adolescent execution of the vertical jump is poor. The recent Aus-
tralian NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey study (Hardy et al. 2010b)
contradicts the aforementioned findings and displays a more optimistic light on the vertical
jump performance amongst 13 – 14-year olds with 58.2% (male) and 56.1% (female) pos-
sessing advanced skill proficiency. These conflicting findings highlight differences between
countries across adolescent locomotor skill proficiency. In an Irish context, 81% of primary
level schools participate in traditional Gaelic games (Woods et al. 2010) and the vertical
jump is embedded within these native games in physical education and more broadly in
sports clubs. Recent research highlights a recurring misconception that the acquisition of
these basic movement patterns occurs naturally (Hardy et al. 2010b). Results from this
study highlight that 77% of participants cannot execute the vertical jump proficiently
despite the high prevalence of participating within Gaelic games. It would appear that
Irish youth are engaging in sport-specific skills without learning the prerequisite criteria
for basic jumping and movement patterns, with a further implication indicating that these
FMS are not developed during physical education or in the sporting environment.
In terms of gender differentiation, overall, males had higher skill proficiency than
females in the total FMS composite score. When subtest breakdown is considered, males
had statistically higher advanced skill proficiency in object control skills compared to
females (71% vs. 53%), which is consistent with the current FMS literature (Barnett
et al. 2010; Wrotniak et al. 2006). Males displayed significantly higher advanced skill pro-
ficiency in the overhand throw and this result may be a plausible explanation for their
overall dominance within the object control subtest. Furthermore, it may be plausible
that maturation factors occurring during the pubertal phase of early adolescence may con-
tribute to the present FMS gender differences (Garcia 1994). It was interesting to observe,
however, that males and females performed similarly well in both striking and kicking, par-
ticularly noting the high scores associated with female execution in both of these skills.
Despite male adolescent superiority within this object control subtest, Irish female
kicking and throwing performances (98% and 71% advanced skill proficiency) appear
much stronger than that reported in other international adolescent youth studies over the
566 W. O’ Brien et al.

last decade (Barnett et al. 2010; Booth et al. 1999; Hardy et al. 2010b). It is conceivable and
notably credible that 32% of the Irish female primary school population participate in extra-
curricular sports such as Gaelic Games (Woods et al. 2010), which may account for these
competent kicking results. Yet, regardless of the environment, sport or physical education,
the majority of Irish youth have not learned the basic FMS with respect to the ‘process’ of
movement, with the exception of female kicking skill proficiency.
When individual locomotor skills were considered, males were found to have higher
advanced skill proficiency compared to females in the run and horizontal jump, while
females performed significantly higher than males in the skip. Aside from the possibility
of maturation differences existing between genders, it has also been suggested by Garcia
(1994) that the significantly higher male performance in both the run and the horizontal
jump could be attributed to the competitive, individual and egocentric nature of males.
According to the well-informed opinion of Haywood and Getchell (2009), females
perform the skip better than males; this may in part be explained by the social nature of
this more recreational skill (Okely, Booth, and Patterson 2001a,2001b).
Overall, advanced skill proficiency was particularly weak because of the high failure
amongst specific behavioural components, that is, performance or process component of
the movement pattern (knees bent, arms extended, etc.). Each of the nine FMS produces
different outcomes, yet the behavioural components often overlap between skills. Move-
ment practitioners should be concerned with the behavioural components which were
failed by a large proportion of participants. Specifically, our current findings indicate
that the behavioural component of ‘crouching with the knees bent and arms behind the
body’ was performed consistently poorly across both the vertical and the horizontal
jump during take-off. Similarly, a large proportion of participants failed to ‘forcefully
raise their arms upwards’ during flight. Ninety-nine percent of the participants who
failed to execute the skip (N¼199; Table 2) proficiently were unable to generate ‘move-
ment of the arms in opposition to legs at about waist level’ correctly. Low movement skill
proficiency at the behavioural component level was similarly observed in the object
control subtest, specifically ‘contacting the ball with one hand at belt level’ in the
dribble, catching ‘the ball with two hands only’ and ‘bat contacting the ball’ in the
strike. Performing the dribble, catch and strike requires different patterns of movement
with varying sensory and perceptual processing. Despite the unique complexity and per-
formance criteria associated with these three object control skills, results from this Irish
adolescent assessment highlight that there is a deficit in basic hand– eye coordination.
These findings suggest that FMS development programmes during physical education
class and outside of school hours are warranted, allowing researchers and practitioners
to specifically target these main weaknesses in FMS execution (Booth et al. 1999;
Hardy et al. 2010b). By planning developmentally appropriate movement activities
(Logan et al. 2011) through structured physical education teaching (Belton et al 2014;
Kalaja et al 2012; O’ Brien, Issartel, and Belton 2013), one could promote the motor
skill acquisition of adolescent youth.
Tailoring interventions to focus on specific skill behavioural component weaknesses
both within and across FMS is a sensible approach (Van Beurden et al. 2002)in
school and physical education. The efficacy of such tailored interventions has been
shown in a recent study (Foweather et al. 2008) which investigated the effect of a 9-
week after-school multiskills club on FMS proficiency amongst 8 – 9-year-old children,
showing that important performance improvements in catching, throwing and kicking
were observed. Martin, Rudisill, and Hastie (2009) similarly provide evidence on the
positive impact of FMS performance in children across 12 skills over time in a naturalistic
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 567

physical education intervention setting. In a recent paper which revisited US physical edu-
cation teacher effectiveness in a public health context (McKenzie and Lounsbery 2014),
the concept of ‘health optimizing physical education’ (Sallis et al. 2012) suggests that
physical education should be an enjoyable experience during which students learn gener-
alizable movement skills that will transfer into diverse activities, sports and games offered
at school, and later in life. In the present study, the high proportion who displayed ‘near
mastery’ in the skip (68%) suggests that the number of adolescent participants advancing
to mastery level could be improved through the delivery of school-based FMS pro-
grammes during physical education. Most recent evidence (Kalaja et al. 2012) reveals
that it is possible to develop junior high-school students’ FMS performance through phys-
ical education. Developing such a movement skill intervention would be a strategic step
towards improving the current levels of adolescent FMS proficiency found in this study.
There is evidence that increased proficiency in FMS amongst children and adolescent
youth can lead to increased participation in PA (Barnett et al. 2009,2011; Jaakkola et al.
2009). Current Irish research by Woods et al. (2010) highlights that only 10% and 12%,
respectively, of Irish adolescents meet the current physical education recommendations
(120 minutes per week) and PA guidelines for health (at least 60 minutes of moderate to
vigorous intensity PA every day). Strategic advice from the Children’s Sport Participation
and Physical Activity report (Woods et al. 2010) suggests that FMS programmes will allow
children of all ages to begin their journey into sport and exercise skill development. By
creating an environment whereby adolescent youth can engage in regular participation
in FMS, a successful transition to the sport-specific phase can occur at a later stage.
Results from the current study highlight the need for future research examining the associ-
ations between FMS and PA for the adolescent population. To gain a meaningful insight
into adolescent motor skill proficiency, recent recommendations suggest continuing to
investigate the association of FMS over time and more longitudinal studies with interven-
tions across differing age groups (Lubans et al. 2010).
Conclusion
Whilst similar FMS research in other parts of Ireland is warranted, results of this specific
cross-sectional study indicate that Irish adolescents entering year one of post-primary edu-
cation do not display advanced skill proficiency across nine selected FMS. If no steps are
taken to counteract this problem of poor skill proficiency, then it is likely that Irish adoles-
cents will not acquire the necessary FMS to participate fully in activities of their choice and
consequently, PA participation will remain low. This may ultimately lead a lower quality
life due to the significant role these movement capabilities play in shaping one’s health
status (Lubans et al. 2010). To counteract these gross motor deficiencies in Ireland, the
specific behavioural components of weakness identified in this study should be targeted
to achieve the desired ‘mastery’ outcome. Targeting the weakest FMS behavioural com-
ponents both within the physical education environment and outside of school hours
may prove to be significant determinants for increasing FMS and subsequently the PA
levels of school-aged children and youth.
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the field research team for their dedicated professionalism during the stages
of data collection and analysis, and also offer our sincere gratitude to the participants, parents, teachers
and principals from the four post-primary schools involved.
568 W. O’ Brien et al.

Funding
This work was supported by Dublin City University (DCU), the Wicklow Local Sports Partnership
(WLSP) and the County Wicklow Vocational Education Committee (VEC), Ireland.
References
Barnett, L. M., P. J. Morgan, E. Van Beurden, K. Ball, and D. Lubans. 2011. “A Reverse Pathway?
Actual and Perceived Skill Proficiency and Physical Activity.” Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise 43 (5): 898– 904. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181fdfadd.
Barnett, L. M., E. Van Beurden, P. J. Morgan, L. O. Brooks, and J. R. Beard. 2009. “Childhood Motor
Skill Proficiency as a Predictor of Adolescent Physical Activity.” Journal of Adolescent Health 44
(3): 252–259. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.004.
Barnett, L., E. Van Beurden, P. Morgan, L. Brooks, and J. Beard. 2010. “Gender Differences in Motor
Skill Proficiency from Childhood to Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study.” Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport 81 (2): 162– 170. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20527301.
Belton, S., W. O’ Brien, S. Meegan, C. Woods, and J. Issartel. 2014. “Youth-Physical Activity Towards
Health: Evidence and Background to the Development of the Y-PATH Physical Activity
Intervention for Adolescents.” BMC Public Health 14 (122). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-122.
Booth, M. L., E. Denney-Wilson, A. D. Okely, and L. L. Hardy. 2005. “Methods of the NSW Schools
Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS).” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 8
(3): 284–293. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244005800398.
Booth, M. L., T. Okely, L. McLellan, P. Phongsavan, P. Macaskill, J. Patterson, J. Wright, and B.
Holland. 1999. “Mastery of Fundamental Motor Skills Among New South Wales School
Students: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Distribution.” Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport 2 (2): 93–105. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10476973.
Breslin, G., M. Murphy, D. McKee, B. Delaney, and M. Dempster. 2012. “The Effect of Teachers
Trained in a Fundamental Movement Skills Programme on Children’s Self-perceptions and
Motor Competence.” European Physical Education Review 18 (1): 114– 126. doi:10.1177/
1356336X11430657.
Cliff, D., A. Okely, L. Smith, and K. McKeen. 2009. “Relationships Between Fundamental
Movement Skills and Objectively Measured Physical Activity in Preschool Children.”
Pediatric Exercise Science 21 (4): 436– 449. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128363.
Cools, W., K. De Martelaer, C. Samaey, and C. Andries. 2009. “Movement Skill Assessment of
Typically Developing Preschool Children: A Review of Seven Movement Skill Assessment
Tools.” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 8: 154– 168.
Department of Education Victoria. 1996. Fundamental Motor Skills: A Manual for Classroom
Teachers. Melbourne: Education Department of Victoria.
Department of Health and Human Services, U.S., and U.S. Department of Education. 2000.
Promoting Better Health for Young People Through Physical Activity and Sports. 2nd ed.
Silver Spring, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Ennis, C. 2010. “On their Own: Preparing Students for a Lifetime.” Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance 81 (5): 17– 22. doi:10.1080/07303084.2010.10598475.
Evaggelinou, C., N. Tsigilis, and A. Papa. 2002. “Construct Validity of the Test of Gross Motor
Development: A Cross-validation Approach.” Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 19: 483 – 495.
Fisher, A., J. J. Reilly, L. A. Kelly, C. Montgomery, A. Williamson, J. Y. Paton, and S. Grant. 2005.
“Fundamental Movement Skills and Habitual Physical Activity in Young Children.” Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise 37 (4): 684– 688. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000159138.48107.7D.
Foweather, L., N. McWhannell, J. Henaghan, A. Lees, G. Stratton, and Alan M. Batterham. 2008.
“Effect of a 9-wk after-school Multiskills Club on Fundamental Movement Skill Proficiency in
8- to 9- yr Old Children: An Exploratory Trial.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 106: 745– 754.
Gallahue, D., and J. Ozmun. 2006. Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children,
Adolescents, Adults. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gallahue, D., J. Ozmun, and J. Goodway. 2012. Understanding Motor Development: Infants,
Children, Adolescents, Adults. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garcia, C. 1994. “Gender Differences in Young Children’s Interactions when Learning Fundamental
Motor Skills.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 65 (3): 213– 225.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 569

Goodway, J., H. Crowe, and P. Ward. 2003. “Effects of Motor Skill Instruction on Fundamental Motor
Skill Development.” Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 20: 298–314.
Goodway, J. D., L. E. Robinson, and H. Crowe. 2010. “Gender Differences in Fundamental Motor
Skill Development in Disadvantaged Preschoolers from Two Geographical Regions.” Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81 (1): 17–24. doi:10.1080/02701367.2010.10599624.
Halverson, L. E., and M. A. Roberton. 1966. “A Study of Motor Pattern Development in Young
Children.” Paper presented at the March 1966 national convention of the American
Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. Chicago, IL.
Hardy, L., L. King, P. Espinel, C. Cosgrove, and A. Bauman. 2010b. NSW Schools Physical Activity
and Nutrition Survey (SPANS). Full Report. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health.
Hardy, L. L., L. King, L. Farrell, R. Macniven, and S. Howlett. 2010a. “Fundamental Movement
Skills among Australian Preschool Children.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13
(5): 503–508. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.05.010.
Harten, N., T. Olds, and J. Dollman. 2008. “The Effects of Gender, Motor Skills and Play Area on the
Free Play Activities of 8-11 year Old School Children.” Health & Place 14 (3): 386– 393. doi:10.
1016/j.healthplace.2007.08.005.
Haywood, K., and N. Getchell. 2009. Life Span Motor Development. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Hume, C., A. Okely, S. Bagley, A. Telford, M. Booth, D. Crawford, and J. Salmon. 2008. “Does
Weight Status Influence Associations Between Children’s Fundamental Movement Skills and
Physical Activity.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79 (2): 158– 165.
Jaakkola, T., S. Kalaja, J. Liukkonen, A. Jutila, P. Virtanen, and Anthony Watt. 2009. “Relations
among Physcial Activity Patterns, Lifestyle Activities, and Fundamental Movement Skills for
Finnish Students in Grade 7.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 108: 97–111.
Jaakkola, T., and T. Washington. 2012, July. “The Relationship Between Fundamental Movement
Skills and Self-Reported Physical Activity During Finnish Junior High School.” Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy: 1–14. doi:10.1080/17408989.2012.690386.
Kalaja, S., T. Jaakkola, J. Liukkonen, and Digelidis, N. 2012. “Development of Junior High School
Students’ Fundamental Movement Skills and Physical Activity in a Naturalistic Physical
Education Setting.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 17 (4): 411–428.
Logan, S., L. Robinson, A. Wilson, and W. Lucas. 2011, September. “Getting the Fundamentals of
Movement: A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Motor Skill Interventions in Children.”
Child: Care, Health and Development 1–11. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01307.x.
Lubans, D. R., P.J. Morgan, D. P. Cliff, L. M. Barnett, and A. D. Okely. 2010. “Fundamental
Movement Skills in Children and Adolescents: Review of Associated Health Benefits.” Sports
Medicine 40 (12): 1019–1035. doi:10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000.
Martin, E. H., M. E. Rudisill, and P. A. Hastie. 2009. “Motivational climate and Fundamental Motor
Skill Performance in a Naturalistic Physical Education Setting.” Physical Education & Sport
Pedagogy 14 (3): 227–240. doi:10.1080/17408980801974952.
McCall, R., and D. Craft. 2004. Purposeful Play-early Childhood Movement Activities on a Budget.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McKenzie, T. L., and M.A F. Lounsbery. 2014. “The Pill not Taken: Revisiting Physical Education
Teacher Effectiveness in a Public Health Context.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
85 (3): 287–292. doi:10.1080/02701367.2014.931203.
Mitchell, B., S. McLennan, K. Latimer, D. Graham, J. Gilmore, and E. Rush. 2013. “Improvement of
Fundamental Movement Skills Through Support and Mentorship of Class Room Teachers.”
Obesity Research & Clinical Practice 7 (3): e230– e234. doi:10.1016/j.orcp.2011.11.002.
NationalAssociation for Sport and Physical Education. 1995. Moving into the Future: National Standards
for Physical Education. A Guide to Content and Assessment. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Nelson, N. M., and C. B. Woods. 2009. “Obesogenic Environments: Are Neighbourhood
Environments that Limit Physical Activity Obesogenic.” Health & Place 15 (4): 917 – 924.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.02.001.
O’ Brien, W. 2013. “The Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation of the Youth-Physical
Activity Towards Health (Y-PATH) intervention.” PhD diss., Dublin City University.
O’ Brien, W., J. Issartel, and S. Belton. 2013. “Evidence for the Efficacy of the Youth-Physical
Activity Towards Health (Y-PATH) Intervention.” Advances in Physical Education 3 (4): 145–
153. doi:10.4236/ape.2013.34024.
570 W. O’ Brien et al.

O’Keeffe, S. L., A. J. Harrison, and P. J. Smyth. 2007. “Transfer or Specificity: An Applied
Investigation into the Relationship Between Fundamental Overarm Throwing and Related
Sport Skills.” Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 12 (2): 89 – 102. doi:10.1080/
17408980701281995.
Okely, A. D., and M. L. Booth. 2004. “Mastery of Fundamental Movement Skills among Children in
New South Wales: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Distribution.” Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport 7 (3): 358 –372.
Okely, A. D., M. L. Booth, and J. W. Patterson. 2001a. “Relationship of Physical Activity to
Fundamental Movement Skills among Adolescents.” Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise 33 (11): 1899– 1904. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11689741.
Okely, A., M. Booth, and J. Patterson. 2001b. “Relationship of Cardiorespiratory Endurance to
Fundamental Movement Skill Proficiency among Adolescents.” Pediatric Exercise Science 13:
380–391.
Pang, A. W-Y., and D. T-P. Fong. 2009. “Fundamental Motor Skill Proficiency of Hong Kong
Children Aged 6–9 Years.” Research in Sports Medicine 17 (3): 125–144. doi:10.1080/
15438620902897516.
Sallis, J., T. McKenzie, M. Beets, A. Beighle, H. Erwin, and S. Lee. 2012. “Physical Education’s Role
in Public Health: Steps Forward and Backward Over 20 years and HOPE for the Future.”
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 83 (2): 125– 135.
Seefeldt, V., and J. Haubenstricker. 1982. “Patterns, Phases, or Stages: An Analytical Model for the
Study of Developmental Movement.” In The Development of Movement Control and
Coordination, edited by J. A. S. Kelso and J. E. Clark, 309–319. New York: Wiley.
Stodden, D., S. Langendorfer, and M. A. Roberton. 2009. “The Association Between Motor Skill
Competence and Physical Fitness in Young Adults.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport 80 (2): 223–229.
Tsangaridou, N. 2012. “Educating Primary Teachers to Teach Physical Education.” European
Physical Education Review 18 (3): 275 –286. doi:10.1177/1356336X12450788.
Ulrich, D. 1985. Test of Gross Motor Development. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Ulrich, D. 2000. Test of Gross Motor Development 2: Examiner’s Manual. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: PRO-
ED.
Van Beurden, E., A. Zask, L. M. Barnett, and U.C. Dietrich. 2002. “Fundamental Movement Skills:
How do Primary School Children Perform the ‘Move it Groove it’ Program in Rural
AUSTRALIA.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 5 (3): 244 – 252. http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12413042.
Wickstrom, R. L. 1983. Fundamental Motor Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Wong, K. Y. A., and S. Y. Cheung. 2010. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Test of Gross Motor
Development-2.” Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 14 (3): 202– 209.
doi:10.1080/10913671003726968.
Woods, C., D. Tannehill, A. Quinlan, N. Moyna, and J. Walsh. 2010. “The Children’s Sport
Participation and Physical Activity Study (CSPPA).” Research Report No 1. Dublin, Ireland.
Wrotniak, B. H., L. H. Epstein, J. M. Dorn, K. E. Jones, and V. A. Kondilis. 2006. “The Relationship
Between Motor Proficiency and Physical Activity in Children.” Pediatrics 118 (6): e1758–
e1765. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0742.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 571