ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Journal
of
Science
and
Medicine
in
Sport
j o u r n a l ho me p ag e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j s a m s
Original
research
Development
and
validation
of
a
model
of
motor
competence
in
children
and
adolescents
Carlos
Luz
a,b,∗,
Luis
P.
Rodrigues
d,e,
Gabriela
Almeida
c,
Rita
Cordovil
f aLaboratoryofMotorBehavior,FaculdadedeMotricidadeHumana,UniversidadedeLisboa,PortugalbEscolaSuperiordeEducac¸ãodeLisboa,InstitutoPolitécnicodeLisboa,Portugal cFaculdadedeCiênciasdaSaúde,UniversidadeFernandoPessoa,Portugal
dEscolaSuperiordeDesportoeLazer,InstitutoPolitécnicodeVianadoCastelo,Portugal eCIDESD,Portugal
fLaboratoryofMotorBehavior,CIPER,FaculdadedeMotricidadeHumana,UniversidadedeLisboa,Portugal
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Articlehistory:
Received23December2014 Receivedinrevisedform15June2015 Accepted2July2015
Availableonline10July2015 Keywords: Motorcompetence Physicaleducation Quantitativeinstruments Locomotor Manipulative Stability
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Objectives:Thisstudywasaimedatdevelopingaquantitativemodeltoevaluatemotorcompetence(MC) inchildrenandadolescents,tobeapplicableinresearch,education,andclinicalcontexts.
Design:Cross-sectional.
Methods:Atotalof584children(boysn=300)withagesbetween6and14yearswereassessedusing ninewellknownquantitativemotortasks,dividedintothreemajorcomponents(stability,locomotor andmanipulative).StructuralequationmodellingthroughEQS6.1wasusedtofindthebestmodelfor representingthestructuralandmeasurementvalidityofMC.
Results:ThefinalMCmodelwascomposedbythreelatentfactorscloselyrelatedwitheachother.Each factorwasbestrepresentedbytwooftheinitialthreemotortaskschosen.Themodelwasshowntogive averygoodoverallfit(!2=12.04,p=.061;NFI=.982;CFI=.991;RMSEA=.059).
Conclusions:MCcanbeparsimoniouslyrepresentedbysixquantitativemotortasks,groupedintothree interrelatedfactors.Thedevelopedmodelwasshowntoberobustwhenappliedtodifferentsamples, demonstratingagoodstructuralandmeasurementreliability.Theuseofaquantitativeprotocolwith few,simpletoadministerandwellknown,motortasks,isanimportantadvantageofthismodel,since itcanbeusedinseveralcontextswithdifferentobjectives.Wefinditespeciallybeneficialforphysical educationsteacherswhohavetoregularlyassesstheirstudents.
©2015SportsMedicineAustralia.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
1. Introduction
Inthelasttwodecadesagrowingbody ofevidencesuggests
thatearlyMotorCompetence(MC)isofparamountimportancefor
developinganactiveandhealthylifestyle.1MCisusedasaglobal
termtodescribeaperson’sabilitytobeproficientonawiderange
ofmotoractsorskills.2Thisabilityhasbeendescribedinthe
lit-eraturealsoasmotorcoordination,motorperformance,ormotor
proficiency.Intheinitialphasesofmotordevelopment,children’s
MCinvolvesthemasteryoffundamentalmotorskillsthatarethe
foundationsforthemasteryofspecializedmotorskills.Ithasbeen
reportedthatphysicalactivity,3,4cardiorespiratoryfitness,5,6
phys-icalfitness,7andperceivedphysicalcompetence,8,9havepositive
effectsandassociationswithMC,aswellasaninverseassociation
∗ Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddress:carlosmiguelluz@gmail.com(C.Luz).
withweightstatus10inchildrenandadolescents.Thishasprovided
emergingevidencetothetheoreticalmodelproposedbyStodden
andcolleagues.1
MCasatheoreticalconstructis consideredtobesubdivided
intolocomotor(e.g.,leaping,gallopingorverticaljump),stability
(e.g.,dynamicand staticbalance)and manipulative(e.g.,
catch-ing,throwingandkicking)11proficiency.However,thisstructure
isnotalwaysreflectedinresearchand/orclinicalsettingswhere
MCconstitutesthesubjectofinterest.Severalstandardizedtests
(e.g.,TGMD, KTK),and a number of different non-standardized
protocols,12,13foundintheliterature,aredeemedtoevaluateMC
butdonotfollowthetheoreticalMCconstruct.Forexample,the
TGMDdoesnotevaluatestabilityandtheKTKdoesnotevaluate
manipulativeproficiency.Furthermore,mostinstrumentsand
pro-tocolsarerestrictedtoaspecificage,ornarrowage-range,either
duetothedevelopmentalrestrictedagewindowofthemotortasks,
ortothenatureoftheusedscoringprocedures(quantitativeor
qualitative).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.07.005
C.Luzetal./JournalofScienceandMedicineinSport19(2016)568–572
Thisgreatdiscrepancybetweentheacceptedtheoretical
con-structofMCanditsapplicationinresearchand/orclinicalsettings
showsthelackofarobustconceptualandworkingmodelofMC
thatcouldbesuccessfullyusedindifferentsettingsand
develop-mentalages.Toourknowledge,nostudieshavebeenpresented
thatvalidatethetheoreticalMCmodelstructureusingthe
origi-nalthreecategories.Somestudieshaveusedstructuralequation
modellingorconfirmatoryfactoranalysistechniquestolookfor
thestructuralvalidityofinstruments(e.g.,M-ABC,14TGMD15)but
theinstrumentsthemselveswerenotinfullagreementwiththe
theoreticalMCmodel.
Themain objectiveof thisstudy wastoestablish aworking
developmentalmodel ofMC,based onthree domains
(locomo-tor,stability,andmanipulative)ofthetheoreticalconstructofMC.
Wehypothesizedthateachofthesethreecategoriesisrepresented
byageindependentsignificantmotortasksthatcanbeobjectively
measured(product).
Toachievethispurposewehaveassessedchildrenusingseveral
motortasksrepresentativeofeachMCcategoryintheliterature,
andworkedwiththedatatofindarepresentativeandparsimonious
modelofMCusingspecificStructuralEquationsModelling(SEM)
techniques.
2. Methods
Atotalof584children(300males),aged6to14years(M=10.60,
SD=2.40), participated in this study. Children were randomly
selectedfrompublicPortugueseschoolsandhadnoknown
learn-ing disabilitiesor pre-existing motor limitations. A localethics
committeeapprovalwasobtainedandparentsprovidedwritten
informedconsent.TwoPhysicalEducation(PE)teacherswith10
years of experiencewere trained to collectthedata in regular
scheduledclasses(eachteacheralwaysassessedthesamegroup
oftasks).
Three tests for each MC category (stability, locomotor, and
manipulative)11wereselectedfromthemostusedprotocolsand
instrumentsinthemotordevelopmentliterature.Inclusioncriteria
werebeingquantitative(product-oriented)motortestswithouta
markeddevelopmental(age)ceilingeffect,andoffeasible
execu-tion.
Stabilitytestswere:(a)balancebeams16—walkingbackwards
onthreebalancebeamswith3minlengthbutofdecreasingwidths
(6,4.5and3cm).Eachparticipanthadthreeattemptsperbeam
andeachattempthadthemaximumscoreof8points.Thetotal
scorewasgivenbythesumofpointsinthethreebalancebeams
(72totalpossiblepoints);(b)Shiftingplatforms16—moving
side-waysfor20susingtwowoodenplatforms(25cm×25cm×2cm).
Eachsuccessfultransferfromoneplatformtotheotherwasscored
withtwopoints(onepointforeachstep).Participantsweregiven
two trials and only the best score was considered; (c)
jump-inglaterally16—jumpingsidewayswithtwofeettogetherovera
woodenbeamasfastaspossiblefor15s.Eachcorrectjumpscored
1pointandthebestresultovertwotrialswasconsidered.
Locomo-tortestswere:(a)hoppingononelegoveranobstacle16—jumping
overastackoffoamblocks5cmhighwithonefoot,reachingthe
floorwith thesame foot. Aftera successful attemptwith each
foot,the heightwas increasedby adding one foam block.
Par-ticipantsreceivedthree,twoor onepoint(s)foreachsuccessful
performanceonthefirst,secondorthirdtrial,respectively.
There-fore,eachchild hadthree attempts ateachheightand oneach
foot.Thetestingwasstoppedwhenaheighttrialwasnot
success-fullycompletedwithbothfeet.Thetotalscorewasgivenbythe
sumofpointsatalltheheights;(b)shuttlerun(SHR)17—running
atmaximalspeedtoalineplaced10mapart,pickingupablock
ofwood,runningbackand placingit onor beyondthestarting
line.Thenrunningbacktoretrievethesecondblockandcarryit
backacrossthefinishline. Thefinalscorewasthebesttimeof
thetwotrials;(c)standinglongjump(SLJ)18—jumpingwithboth
feetsimultaneouslyasfaraspossible.Thefinalscore(thebetter
of2attempts)wasthedistance(inm)betweenthestartingline
andthebackoftheheelatlandingclosesttotheline.
Manipula-tivetestswere:(a)walltosstest19—throwingatennisballwith
anoverarmactionagainstthewall(2mdistance),attemptingto
catchitwithbothhandsover30s.Thefinalscorewasgivenby
thebetterresult(numberofcatches)in2attempts;(b)throwing
velocity20—throwingabaseball(circumference:22.86cm;weight:
142g) at a maximum speed against a wall using an overarm
action.Threetrialswereperformed,andthefinalscorewasgiven
by the best result; and (c) kickingvelocity20—kicking a soccer
ballno.4 (circumference:64cm,weight: 350g) at amaximum
speedagainstawallusingakickingaction.Threetrialswere
per-formed,andthefinalscorewasgivenbythebestresult.Ballpeak
velocity wasmeasuredwitha Pro IIStalkerRadarGunin both
tests.
Participantscompletedageneralwarm-upbeforethebeginning
ofthetests.Then,groupsoffivestudentswereevaluatedinthe
sametaskorder.Participantsobservedademonstrationofthe
pro-ficienttechniqueandhadtheopportunitytoexperimentwitheach
taskonetimebeforetheirperformance.Motivationalfeedbackwas
given;howevernoverbalfeedbackonskillperformancewas
pro-vided.Inthethrowing/kickingtasks,childrenwereinstructedto
throw/kicktheballasfastastheycould.
Inordertoassesstheplausibilityandvalidityofourtheoretically
drivenMCmodel,weusedaspecialmulti-groupconfirmatory
fac-toranalysis,knownasstackmodel.21Inthefirsttwostepsofthis
procedure, thefullsample(584 subjects)wasrandomlysplitin
halfmaintainingthesexproportionality.Thefirsthalf(292
sub-jects)wasusedasacalibrationsample(tosettheinitialbestmodel
toentailMCaccordingtothetheoreticalframework),andthe
sec-ondasavalidationsample,usedtoassurethatthepreviouschosen
model (factors andloadingitems)wasable toreproduceevery
otherdata.
Onthethirdphase(crossvalidity)weformallytestedfor
mea-sureandstructuralinvariancebetweenthetwosplithalves.Totest
formeasureinvariance,theformalstructurefromthecalibration
samplewasimposedonthevalidationsamplewhileallparameters
wereleftfree.Usingamorerestrictedapproach(tightcross
vali-dation),structuralinvariancewasalsoimposedtothevalidation
sample,withallparametersconstrainedtothecalibrationmodel
values.
Theabsolutefitofthemodels(individualandmulti-group
anal-ysis)wasevaluatedusingtheSatorraandBentlerscaledchi-square
(!2)(1994)withcorrectionfornon-normality,whiletherelativefit
wasassessedusingthecomparativefitindex(CFI),thenormedfit
index(NFI),andthegoodnessoffitindex(GFI).Fortheseindices,
valuesover.95andupto1.0aredeemedindicativeofagoodfit.
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and
respective confidence intervals (CI) were used for evaluating
howwellthemodel-impliedreproducedthevariance-covariance
matrixofthedata,keepinginmindthatRMSEAvaluesaslowas
.06representagoodfittothemodel.21–23EQSLagrangeMultiplier
Tests(LMT)foraddinganddeletingparameterswereinterpreted
withinthetheoreticalframeworkforeachmodeltestedinthe
cal-ibrationphase,andalterationsmadeaccordingly.Variableswere
considered for deletion when LMT suggested that such
proce-dureresultedinasignificantimprovementofthemodelfit.Each
consecutivemodelwascomparedwiththeprevioususingthe
chi-squareanddegreesoffreedomchange,andwasonlyretainedwhen
thiscomparisonshowedstatisticalsignificance.Allanalyseswere
conductedusingtheEQS6.1computerprogram(Multivariate
C.Luzetal./JournalofScienceandMedicineinSport19(2016)568–572 Table1
Indicesforevaluatinggoodnessoffitofmodelsindifferentphases.
!2 p NFI CFI RMSEA
Phase1—Calibrationsample(n=292)
Model1(9variables) 159.39(24df) .000 .881 .896 .139
Model2(8variables) 134.31(18df) .000 .880 .894 .149
Model3(7variables) 96.69(11df) .000 .897 .907 .164
Model4(6variables) 12.04(6df) .061 .982 .991 .059
Phase2—Validationsample(n=292)
Model4(6variables) 12.15(6df) .058 .986 .993 .059
Phase3—Multi-groupanalysis(n=584)
Measurementinvariance 24.20(12df) .019 .984 .992 .042
Structuralinvariance 30.44(15df) .010 .980 .990 .042
3. Results
Inthecalibrationphase(phase1)theinitialformulationofthe
MCmodelwassetaccordingtothetheoreticalformulationwith
threefactors(stability,locomotor,and manipulative),and three
possibleitems (motorskill tasks)accounting (loading)oneach
factor.Departingfromthis theoreticalmodel,weexaminedthe
solutionaccordingtothesignificanceoftheloadingcoefficients,
R2valuesofthevariablesequations,andindicesofoveralland
rel-ativefit(!2,CFI,NFIandRMSEA).EQSLagrangeMultipliertestsfor
addinganddeletingparameterswereusedtoimprovethemodel
fit,accordingtotheoreticalinterpretation.Asaresultofthis
proce-dure,threevariables(hoppingononelegoveranobstacle,walking
onabalancebeam,andtossingandcatchingaball)were
consecu-tivelydroppedfromtheoriginalmodel,resultinginafinalmodelof
MCwithsixmotortasks(jumpinglaterally,shiftingplatforms,SHR,
SLJ,throwingvelocity,kickingvelocity)andthreecorrelated
fac-torsshowingaverygoodoverallfit(!2=12.04,p=.061;NFI=.982;
CFI=.991;RMSEA=.059;CI(RMSEA)=(000–.106).Thisfinal
stan-dardizedsolutionisshowninFig.1,andthefitindexesvaluesfor
thefourconsecutivemodelstestedcanbeseeninTable1.
Inthesecondstep(validationphase),datafromthesecondhalf
ofthesamplewastestedusingthefinalspecifiedmodelfromthe
calibrationsample.Overallindicesshowedaverygoodadjustment
ofthismodeltothedata(seeTable1),similartotheonefoundin
thevalidationsample.
Inthethirdstep(crossvalidationphase),inordertotestfor
thecrossvalidityofthemodelweformallytestedformeasureand
structuralinvariancebetweenthetwosplithalves.Totestfor
mea-sureinvariance,theformalstructurefromthecalibrationmodel4
samplewasimposedonthevalidationsamplewhileallparameters
wereleftfree.Indices(!2=24.20,p=.019;NFI=.984;CFI=.993;
RMSEA=.059)fortheoverallfitofthis multi-groupmodelwere
good(seeTable1).Usingamorerestrictedapproach(tightcross
validation),structural invariance wasalsoimposed to the
vali-dationsample,withallparametersconstrainedtothecalibration
model4loadingvalues.Finalresultscontinuedtoshowagood
over-allfit(!2=30.44,p=.010;NFI=.980;CFI=.990;RMSEA=.042),and
theformaltestingfordifferencesbetweentheimposed
parame-ter’svaluesshowednosignificantvalues.So,thesolutionfoundfor
thecalibrationsample(model4)showedaverygoodadjustment
totheotherhalfofthedata,provingitsvalidityforinterpretingthe
MCmodel.
4. Discussion
TheaimofthisstudywastoestablishamodelofMC,based
onatheoreticallystructuredividedintolocomotor,stability,and
manipulative domains. In this endeavor, quantitative
(product-oriented) motor test protocols without a developmental (age)
ceilingeffect,andoffeasibleexecution,wereused.Ourpurpose
when selecting only product-oriented tests was to ensure an
objectiveevaluationandagoodsensitivitytodiscriminateamong
competencelevelsacrossages.20
TheuseofSEMfortestingthisspecificmodelisofgreatutility
sinceitallowstoworkfromthedataforreachingafinalsolutionfor
aMCstructurethatrepresentswellthecommunality(represented
bythecovariance)andtheuniquecharacteristics(non-explained
covariance)oftests(items) andcategories (factors).Theoverall
adjustmentindices,alongwiththeindividualcoefficientsforthe
pathsinvolved(factor-item;factor–factor)providesarationalefor
includingorexcludingeachitem(test),orfactor(category),orpath
(representativenessoftheteststomarka category),toa better
representationofthefullmodel.
Inthevalidationphaseourresultsconfirmedtheexistenceof
three latentfactorsrepresentingthe stability(shifting platform
andjumpinglaterally),locomotor(SHRandSLJ),and
manipula-tive(moving platformand jumping laterally)categories of MC,
eachonebestrepresentedbytwooftheinitialthreemotortasks
chosen.Thesethreefactorsshowtoreproduceverywellthree
dis-tinctiveaspectsofMC,asprovedbytheinexistenceofanychange
JUMP.
Stabil
ity
SHIFT. SLJLocomotor
SHR KICKMan
ipu
lative
THROW .86 .84 .65 .88 .91 .86 .83 .94 .64
Fig.1.Pathdiagramofthemodelformotorcompetencewithcompletely standard-izedvaluesforcoefficientsandcovariances.
C.Luzetal./JournalofScienceandMedicineinSport19(2016)568–572
suggestedinthefactor-itemstructurebythemodificationindices.
In addition,and in accordance withthetheoretical framework,
thesethreecategories(factors)provedtobecloselyrelatedwith
eachother.Overall,this modelpresenteda verygoodfit tothe
data,21–23suggestingthatitcanbeusedtorepresent(andassess)
MC.
Inthesecondphase,thereplicationoftheinitiallyfoundmodel
structureresultedalsoinaverygoodfittotheotherhalfsample
data(calibrationsample),indicatingagoodreliabilityofthemodel
toreproduceMCdata.Inthelaststepweformallytestedfor
mea-sureandstructuralinvariancebetweenthetwohalf-splitsamples,
inordertocross-validateformeasurementandstructural
invari-ance.Inbothcases,thetestedmodelshowedaveryadequatefit,
concludingforitsoverallvalidityforinterpretingMCinchildren
andadolescents.
Therefore,ourresultspostulatethatMCcanbeadvantageously
representedbylocomotor(SHRandSLJ),stability(movingplatform
andjumpinglaterally),andmanipulative(kickandthrowvelocity)
categoriesofmovementskills,andthatthelatentessenceofeachof
thesecategoriescanbeobjectivelymeasuredbytwoquantitative
motortasks.Thismodelpresentsseveraladvantagesforresearch,
education,andclinicalsettings.
Thefirstadvantageistheuseofasetofmotortaskswidelyused
inpastresearchsettingsasrepresentativeofMCcategories.11,16,20
Thesecondadvantageistheparsimonyofthemodel.Unlikeother
models’protocolsthatuseseveralmotortasks,suchastheTGMD24
orM-ABC25orevensomenon-standardizedprotocols,13ourfinal
modelisonlycomprisedbysixfeasibletests.Thethirdadvantage
isthatthismodelusesobjective(quantitative)measures.
Quali-tativemethodsarefocusedontheprocess,providinginsightinto
theformorcharacteristicsofthemovement;therefore,requiring
agreater knowledgeofthemovementcomponentsand usually
requirealotoftimetoanalyzethedata.Quantitativeapproaches
arefocusedonlyonthefinalproductandenableafaster
assess-mentoftheperformanceoutcomewithahighlevelofreliability
over time.26 Thesemethodsare sensitivediscriminatorsamong
competencelevelsacrosschildhoodandearlyadolescence,20and
arecorrelatedwithqualitativeprocess-orientedassessmentsofthe
skills.27–29Moreover,quantitativemethodsalsodonotrequirea
highlevelofexpertiseandtrainingoftheevaluators,asusually
recommendedinqualitativemethods,13sincethelackof
subjec-tivityinherenttothequantitativeapproachespermitsthateven
lessexperiencedobserverscanapplyit.Theentireprotocoltakes
about10minperparticipant;howeverchildrencanbegroupedin
smallgroups,reducing theaveragetimeneededforassessment.
Furthermore,the resultsinformation can beimmediatelyused,
makingitahugeadvantagefortheuseinPEclasses,andsports’
environments.Thefourthadvantageisthatthemotortasksused
donothaveaceilingeffectoverdevelopmentalyears,andsothe
samemodel and protocolcan beusedfrom childhoodtoadult
years. Thefifth advantageis thatthe model,giving the
magni-tudeofthecorrelationsbetweenfactors,suggeststhepossibilityto
obtainaglobalcompositescoreofMC,inadditiontothecategories’
scores.
This model is representative of MC and can be used by
researchers,PEteachers, andhealth and sports training
profes-sionals,inordertoobjectivelymonitormotordevelopment.This
MCmodelseemspromising,butfurtherresearchiswarrantedto
replicatethecurrentresults.
This study has some limitations. The results confirmed the
agreementofsixofthemwiththetestedmodel,nevertheless,and
inordertoachieveamoreaccuraterepresentationofMC,abroader
rangeofmotortestscouldbewarrantedinnextstudies.In
addi-tion,inordertobeconsistentwiththenumberoftrialsforeach
skill,theuseofthreetrialscouldbemoreappropriatetoselectthe
bestscore.
Itisalsoimportanttonotethatoursamplehadchildrenfrom6
to14yearsoldandtheresultsmightevenhaveabetteradjustment
forseparategroupsofageandgender.Futureinvestigationsshould
takeintoconsiderationageandgender.
5. Conclusion
OurresultssupporttheideathatMCcanbeevaluatedthrougha
protocolwithsixmotortasksthatrepresentthethreemajorlatent
variables ofMC(i.e.,stability,locomotorandmanipulative). We
suggestthattheuseofa quantitativeapproachwithfewmotor
taskswithoutacellingeffect,whicharerepresentativeofthemajor
MCcomponents,isagoodalternativetotheexistingtesting
proto-cols.Becausethetestedmotortasksareeasytoassess,PEteachers
oreventrainedclassroomteacherscanusethismodelregularlyin
theirpracticesandevaluations.
Practicalimplications
• Briefandeasytoadministerevaluationmodelrepresentativeof
MC,whichcanbeusedbyseveralprofessionalstoobjectively
monitorMCinseveralcontexts.
• TheteachingofmotorskillsshouldbeintegratedintothePE
cur-riculumactivities,andteacherscouldusethismodelprotocolto
assesschildren’sMC.
• Thisregularassessment canhelpteacherstodevelopthebest
approachandexercisestoimprovetheirstudent’sMC.
Acknowledgments
Wewouldliketothanktheschools,childrenandparentsfor
their participation in this study. We also thank everyone who
helpedwiththedatacollection.
References
1.Stodden David F, Goodway Jacqueline D, Langendorfer Stephen J et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest 2008; 60(2):290–306.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582.
2.Fransen Job, D’Hondt Eva, Bourgois Jan et al. Motor competence assess-mentinchildren:convergentanddiscriminantvaliditybetweentheBOT-2 ShortFormandKTKtestingbatteries.ResDevDisabil2014;35(6):1375–1383.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.011.
3.LopesVP,RodriguesLP,MaiaJARetal.Motorcoordinationaspredictorof physicalactivityinchildhood.ScandJMedSciSports2011;21(5):663–669.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01027.x.
4.Holfelder Benjamin, Schott Nadja. Relationship of fundamental movement skills and physical activity in children and adoles-cents: a systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc 2014; 15:382–391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.005.
5.HagaMonika.Physicalfitnessinchildrenwithhighmotorcompetenceis dif-ferentfromthatinchildrenwithlowmotorcompetence.PhysTher2009; 89(10):1089–1097.http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090052.
6.VandendriesscheJoricB, VandorpeBarbara,Coelho-e-SilvaManuelJetal. Multivariateassociationamongmorphology,fitness,andmotorcoordination characteristicsinboysage7to11.PediatrExercSci2011;23(4):504–520.
7.Hands B, Larkin D, Parker H et al. The relationship among physical activity, motor competence and health-related fitness in 14-year-old adolescents. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2009; 19(5):655–663.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00847.x.
8.BarnettLisaM,MorganPhilipJ,BeurdenEricetal.Perceivedsportscompetence mediatestherelationshipbetweenchildhoodmotorskillproficiencyand ado-lescentphysicalactivityandfitness:alongitudinalassessment.IntJBehavNutr PhysAct2008;5:40.http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-40.
9.BarnettLisaM,MorganPhilipJ,VanBeurdenEricetal.Areversepathway? Actualandperceivedskillproficiencyandphysicalactivity.MedSciSportsExerc 2011;43:898–904.http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181fdfadd. 10.LopesVítorP,StoddenDavidF,BianchiMafaldaMetal.Correlationbetween
BMIandmotorcoordinationinchildren.JSciMedSport2012;15(1):38–43.
C.Luzetal./JournalofScienceandMedicineinSport19(2016)568–572 11.GallahueDavid,OzmunJohn,GoodwayJackie.Understandingmotor
develop-ment:infants,children,adolescents,adults,7thedNewYork,NY,McGraw-Hill, 2012.
12.Hume Clare, Okely Anthony, Bagley Sarah et al. Does weight sta-tus influence associations between children’s fundamental movement skills and physical activity? Res Q Exerc Sport 2008; 79(2):158–165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599479.
13.OkelyAD,BoothML.Masteryoffundamentalmovementskillsamongchildren inNewSouthWales:prevalenceandsociodemographicdistribution.JSciMed Sport2004:358–372.
14.Schulz Joerg, Henderson Sheila E, Sugden David A et al. Structural validity of the Movement ABC-2 test: factor structure comparisons across three age groups. Res Dev Disabil 2011; 32(4):1361–1369.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.032.
15.KimSeonjin,KimMinJoo,ValentiniNadiaCetal.Validityandreliabilityof theTGMD-2forSouthKoreanchildren.JMotBehav2014;46(5):351–356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2014.914886.
16.ErnstKiphard,SchillingF.KörperkoordinationstestfürKinder:KTKManual, Göt-tingen,BeltzTest,2007.
17.Vicente-Rodríguez Germán, Rey-López Juan P, Ruíz Jonathan R et al. Interrater reliability and time measurement validity of speed-agility field tests in adolescents. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25(7):2059–2063.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e742fe.
18.AraIgnacio,MorenoLuis,LeivaMariaTetal.Adiposity,physicalactivity,and physicalfitnessamongchildrenfromAragón,Spain.Obesity(SilverSpring)2007; 15(8):1918–1924.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/oby.2007.228.
19.BeashelPaul.AQASportExamined,Cheltenham,NelsonThornes,2004.
20.StoddenDavidF,GaoZ,LangendorferSJetal.Dynamicrelationshipsbetween motorskillcompetenceandhealth-relatedfitnessinyouth.PediatrExercSci 2014;26(3):231–241.http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/pes.2013-0027.
21.ByrneBarbara.StructuralEquationModelingwithEQS:BasicConcepts, Applica-tions,andProgramming,Mahwah,NJ,LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,2006.
22.BentlerPM.EQS6StructuralEquationsProgramManual,Encino,CA,Multivariate Software,Inc,2006.
23.RaykovTenko,MarcoulidesGeorgeA.AFirstCourseinStructuralEquation Mod-eling,Mahwah,NJ,L.ErlbaumAssociates,2006.
24.UlrichDA.TestofGrossMotorDevelopment,Austin,TX,Pro-ED.Inc,1985.
25.HendersonSE,SugdenDA.MovementAssessmentBatteryforChildrenManual, London,ThePsychologicalCorporationLtd,1992.
26.SprayJudithA.Recentdevelopmentsinmeasurementandpossible applica-tionstothemeasurementofpsychomotorbehavior.ResQExercSport1987; 58(3):203–209.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1987.10605449. 27.MallyKristiK,BattistaRebeccaA,RobertonMaryAnn.Distanceasa
con-trol parameter for place kicking. J Hum Sport Exerc 2011;6(1):122–134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2011.61.14.
28.Stodden David F, Langendorfer Stephen J, Fleisig Glenn S et al. Kine-matic constraints associated with the acquisition of overarm throwing, part II:Upper extremity actions.Res QExerc Sport 2006; 77(4):428–436.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5641/027013606X13080770015166.
29.Stodden David F, Langendorfer Stephen J, Fleisig GS et al. Kinematic constraints associated with the acquisition of overarm throwing, part I: Upper extremity actions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2006; 77(4):417–427.