Development of Movement Literacy. Test battery for secondary schools: The Influence of SES. Remco Polman, Damian Farrow, Jason Berry, James.
Development of Movement Literacy Test battery for secondary schools: The Influence of SES
Remco Polman, Damian Farrow, Jason Berry, James Rudd & Erika Borkoles
The Importance of Movement Literacy Proficiency (FMS) • FMS proficiency regarded as a critical building block in likelihood of sustained sport and activity participation (Barnett, van Beurden, Morgan, Brooks, & Beard, 2009).
• Significant body of research assessing levels of FMS performance in children and adolescents. – Consistent reporting of low levels of FMS (Booth, 1997; Cooley, Oakman, Mc Naughton, & Ryska, 1997; Hardy, 2010; SPANS; Sport New Zealand., 2012; Ulrich, 2000; Walkley, Holland, Treloar, & Probyn-Smith, 1993)
The Importance of FMS Proficiency • Children’s mastery of FMS is correlated with a number of health benefits – Higher levels of physical activity – Cardiorespiratory fitness – Perceived scholastic and athletic competence – Lower levels of overweight Hardy, Reinten-Reynolds, Espinel, Zask, & Okely, 2012
FMS Competency Australia Overall: High prevalence of low FMS competency which is associated with inadequate aerobic fitness
Girls: Low SES 2x more likely to have poor locomotor skills compared to high SES girls; poor locomotor skills associated with not meeting PA guidelines
Boys: Strong association between low FMS and being from CALD background; Low object control skills strongly associated with not meeting PA guidelines.
Research Aim Relatively little research investigating whether the low movement literacy proficiency demonstrated in childhood is addressed in adolescence (See Okely, Booth, & Patterson, 2003; Lubans, Morgan, Cliff, Barnett LM & Okely, 2010 for exceptions)
What is the robustness of the relationship between movement literacy proficiency and SES status? RESEARCH AIM:
To investigate relationship between Movement literacy proficiency and SES status in adolescents
Method Participants: 507 Year 7 students (age = 13 years) of which 310 (61.1%) boys and 197 (38.9%) girls from 4 secondary schools.
Test battery KTK (Balance; Hop for height; Side jump; Platform). Body Coordination FMS: Throw; Kick; Strike; Rebound; Catch; Sprint
Procedure: Children tested during regular PE lesson in Semester 3 or 4 during 2013.
Analysis Strategy Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) School (SES status) X Gender High SES Private Low SES High SES Public Moderate High SES Moderate High SES Sport Academy
Results Demographics School SES
N (507)
Height (m)
Weight (kg)
High Private (10)
127 (74 m)
1.60 ±.8
49.5 ±9.3 19.1 ±2.5 29.0 ±6.3
Low (1)
105 (68 m)
1.58 ±.9
56.8 ±16.4 22.6 ±5.5 27.6 ±8.0
High Public (9)
105 (62 m)
1.59 ±.8
50.0 ±11.3 19.7 ±3.4 23.2 ±6.0
Average/High (5-8) Average/High SC (5-8)
90 (60 m)
1.56 ±.7
49.8 ±11.6 20.3 ±3.8 27.1 ±5.9
80 (46 m
1.58 ±.8
48.8 ±8.7 19.3 ±2.1 29.7 ±5.9
* Boys higher grip strength than girls p < .001 eta2 = .06
BMI (kg/m2)
Grip* (N)
Results MANOVA for both KTK and FMS showed: Significant Gender main effect (P < .001; Eta = .15 and .28 respectively)
Significant School main effect (P < .001; Eta = .13 and .13 respectively)
Results KTK: Balance 60 55
P = .005; Eta = .02
School main effect P < .001; Eta = .07 Low ↓other schools SC ↑ High public + Average High
50 45 40 35 30 Boys
Girls
High Private
Low
High Public Average High
Average High SC
Results KTK: Hop for Height 80 75
P < .001; Eta = .06
School main effect P < .001; Eta = .14
70
SC ↑ other schools; High Private ↑ Low + Average High; High public ↑ Average high
65 60 55 50 45 40 Boys
Girls
High Private
Low
High Public Average High
Average High SC
Results KTK: Side Jump 85 80
P = .005 Eta = .02
School main effect P < .001; Eta = .18
75
SC ↑ other schools; Low ↓ other schools
70 65 60 55 50 Boys
Girls
High Private
Low
High Public
Average High
Average High SC
Results KTK: Platform 55 50
P < .001 Eta = .04
School main effect P < .001; Eta = .18
45
SC ↑ other schools; High public ↓ Rest
40 35 30 25 20 Boys
Girls
High Private
Low
High Public
Average High
Average High SC
FMS: Throw School main effect P < .001; Eta = .11 SC + Average high ↑ other schools
6 5.5
P < .001 Eta = .06
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 Boys
Girls
High Private
Low
High Average Average Public High High SC
FMS: Kick 6
School main effect P < .001; Eta = .08 SC + Average high ↑ other schools; Low ↓ other schools
P < .001 Eta = .06
5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 Boys
Girls
High Private
Low
High Average Average Public High High SC
FMS: Strike School main effect P < .001; Eta = .16
6.5
SC + Average high ↑ other schools
5.5
6
P < .001 Eta = .12
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 Boys
Girls
High Private
Low
High Average Average Public High High SC
Total LOW SESS SCHOOL Mastery
Near Mastery
Unskilled
Skill Level Kick LOW SES SCHOOL Unskilled
14%
Near Mastery
9% 5%
19%
67% 86%
Mastery
Conclusion In particular body coordination seems to be influenced by SES (balance/side jump) and to a lesser extent FMS (strike).
Being in a sport academy moderates body coordination and FMS ability.
Considering the scores on both body coordination and FMS tests it appears that young adolescents require more PE time spend on developing these skills in a systematic way. This seems in particular the case for girls.
