Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MOTOR SKILL PERFORMANCE AND
ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASURES OF BODY SEGMENTS
IN THE KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN
BY
KUK YUEN LUM EUNICE 05017246
AN HONOURS PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS
IN
PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT (HONOURS)
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
APRIL 2008
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
2
APRIL, 2008
We hereby recommend that the Honours Project by Miss Kuk Yuen Lum Eunice
entitled “Relationships Between Motor Skill Performance and Anthropometric
Measures of Body Segments in the Kindergarten Children” be accepted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts Honours Degree in Physical
Education and Recreation Management.
__________________________ __________________________ Prof. Chow Bik Chu Prof. Cheung Siu Yin
Chief Adviser Second Reader
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my chief adviser, Prof. Chow Bik
Chu, for her generous guidance and unfailing support throughout the whole project
period. I am truly grateful to her helpful suggestions and comments on the initial
drafts. Special appreciation is given to Prof. Cheung Siu Yin for being my second
reader. I would also like to thank her for giving me professional advices on the
research.
In addition, sincere thanks go to Ms. Sylviam Mak, the principal of Hong Kong
Baptist University Kindergarten. Without her cooperation, the data collection of the
research will not be able to finish. Lastly, I would like to thank Mr. Yuen Chi Kin and
Miss Liu Ka Lei for their enthusiastic assistance throughout the data collection
process of the project.
__________________________ Kuk Yuen Lum Eunice Department of Physical Education Hong Kong Baptist University Date: _____________________
4
ABSTRACT
The relationship between the body proportions and motor performance is always an
arguable topic. In this study, the relationship between the motor skill performance and
the anthropometric measures of body segments in the kindergarten children was
examined. A total of 31 male (n = 31) and 29 female (n = 29) who aged 3 to 5 years
old participated in the study. Twelve fundamental motor skills from the Test of Gross
Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000) and nine
anthropometric measurements were examined on the K1, K2 and K3 children of the
Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten. The result of the Bivariate correlation
test indicated that there was a significant positive relationship between the locomotor
subtest, the object control subtest and eight of the body measurements (p < 0.05):
stature, body weight, thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length,
forearm length, hand length. Moreover, two separate regression equations indicated
that thigh length and hand length were the best linear combination of variables
explaining the variance for the raw scores of the locomotor subtest (r = 0.680, p <
0.05); whereas foot length and thigh length were the best linear combination of
variables explaining the variance for the raw scores of the object control subtest (r =
0.794, p < 0.05).
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………........1
Statement of Problem……………………………………………....4
Hypotheses……………………………………………………........4
Definition of Terms………………………………………………...5
Delimitations……………………………………………………..…8
Limitations………………………………………………………….9
Significance of Study……………………………………....………10
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………12
Motor Skills Performance of Kindergarten Children………….......12
Relationship between Motor Skills Performance and Body
Proportions…………………………………………………………16
Other Variables that Correlated to Motor Performance…………….18
Use of Anthropometric Data……………………………………..…22
Summary………………………………………………………...….25
3. METHOD………………………………………………………......……26
Sample of Selection………………………………………...………26
CHAPTER Page
6
Measuring Instruments…………………………………….………26
Testing Procedures…………………………………………..…….29
Collection of Data…………………………………………………44
Treatment of Data………………………………………….………44
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA……………………………………….…………46
Results……………………………………………………..………46
Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………47
Testing Result of the Anthropometric Measurement…………50
Testing Result of the TGMD-2…………………………….…53
An Analysis of Correlation among the Twelve Motor Skills and
the Nine Body Measurements of the K1, K2 and K3 children..58
Multiple Regression Analyses……..…………………………62
Discussions……………………………………………………..….65
Relationship between the Raw Scores of the Two Motor Subtests
and the Body Measurements in Kindergarten Children……...65
Regression Equations for the Raw Scores of the Two Motor
Subtests……………………………………………………….68
CHAPTER Page
Testing Result of the Anthropometric Measures of the Body
7
Segments……………………………………………………..71
Testing Result of the TGMD-2………………………….……74
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION……………………………….…….81
Summary of Results…………………………………………..……81
Conclusions…………………………………………………...……83
Recommendations for Further Study………………………………83
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………….….……85
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………..….……95
A. Height-for-age Percentiles for Boys Aged from 2 to 5 Years……………95
B. Height-for-age Percentiles for Girls Aged from 2 to 5 Years……………96
C. Weight-for-age Percentiles for Boys Aged from 2 to 5 Years……...……97
D. Weight-for-age Percentiles for Girls Aged from 2 to 5 Years………..….98
E. Body Mass Index-for-age Percentiles for Boys Aged from 2 to 5 Years..99
F. Body Mass Index-for-age Percentiles for Girls Aged from 2 to 5 Years..100
G. Questionnaire of the Study…………………………………..…….….…101
H. Record Sheets of the TGMD-2……………………………..…….……..102
CHAPTER Page
I. Record Sheets of the Anthropometric Measurement Test……..………..107
J. Instruments of the Test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition
8
(Ulrich, 2000)…………………………………………………….….….108
K. Letter to the Principal of the Hong Kong Baptist University
Kindergarten………………………………………………………..…...109
L. Play Area of the Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten……..…..111
9
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Descriptive Results of Age, Exercise Habits and Interest in Sport of all the
Participants (N = 60)………………………………………………..…...48
2a. Descriptive Results of Age, Exercise Habits and Interest in Sport of the
Male Participants (n = 31)……………………………………..………...49
2b. Descriptive Results of Age, Exercise Habits and Interest in Sport of the
Female Participants (n = 29)……………………………………..……...50
3. Testing Result of the Body Measurement of all the Participants
(N = 60)………………………………………………………..…………51
4a. Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male Participants
(n = 31)……………………………………………………………….…..51
4b. Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female Participants
(n = 29)…………………………………………………………….…….52
5. The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender and Grade for
the Two Subtests (N = 60)………………………………………….……54
6a. Percentiles of the Raw Scores of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for Male
Participants (n = 31)……………………………………………….…….55
10
TABLE Page
6b. Percentiles of the Raw Scores of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for Female
Participants (n = 29)……………………………………………….…….56
7a. Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the 12 Motor
Skills (n = 31)…………………………………………………….…...…57
7b. Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the 12 Motor
Skills (n = 29)…………………………………………………….…...…58
8. Pearson’s Correlation Test between the 9 Body Measurements and the Raw
Scores of the Locomotor Subtest (N = 60)……………………….……...59
9. Pearson’s Correlation Test between the 9 Body Measurements and the Raw
Scores of the Object Control Subtest (N = 60)……………………..……60
10. Statistics Concerning the Regression Equation for the Raw Scores of the
Locomotor Subtest (N = 60)……………………………………..………63
11. Statistics Concerning the Regression Equation for the Raw Scores of the
Object Control Subtest (N = 60)…………………………………………64
12. Pearson’s Correlation Test between the Thigh Length, Hand Length, Foot
Length and Age (N = 60)………………………………………..……….70
11
TABLE Page
13. Comparison on Raw Scores Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Two
Subtests between the Present Study, the Study of Wong & Cheung (2006)
and the one in the Manual of TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000)…………….……80
12
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1. Setting of the TGMD-2…………………………………………..……...30
2. Setting of the Anthropometric Measurement Session………….…..……38
3. Thigh Length…………………………………………………….………40
4. Lower Leg Length…………………………………………….…………41
5. Foot Length………………………………………………………………41
6. Upper Arm Length…………………………………………….…………42
7. Forearm Length…………………………………………………..………43
8. Hand Length………………………………………………………..……43
9. Scatter-plot Showing the Relationship (r = 0.77) between the Foot Length
and the Raw Scores of the Object Control Test for All Participants
(N = 60)………………………………………………………………..…62
10. Comparison on Height, Weight and BMI (50th-percentiles) between the
Present Study and the WHO Child Growth Standards for the Male
Participants………………………………………………………………73
13
FIGURE Page
11. Comparison on Height, Weight and BMI (50th-percentiles) between the
Present Study and the WHO Child Growth Standards for the Female
Participants………………………………………………………………74
12. Comparison on Subtests and Total Raw Scores of the TGMD-2
(50th-percentile) between the Present Study and the Study of Wong &
Cheung (2006) for the Male Participants………………………….……76
13. Comparison on Subtests and Total Raw Scores of the TGMD-2
(50th-percentile) between the Present Study and the Study of Wong &
Cheung (2006) for the Female Participants……………………..………77
14
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Does longer arm contribute to better catching ability? Do taller children jump
higher? They are always one of the popular and important topics in the field of sport,
motor skills and development. No matter what the answers are, it cannot be denied
that the length of the body segments do have interrelationship with physical
performance in sport. According to Norton, Olds, Olive and Craig (1996), there are
many sports where height is a key determinant of success. In racquet sports height is
important in serving, volleying and reaching for the ball. In 1995, correlation was
found between the height of the top 100 ATP male professional tennis players and
their highest rank achieved (ATP Tour, 1995). On the other hand, shortness in stature
is particularly advantageous in acceleration and changing direction (Ford, 1984).
Anthropometric data showed that the shortest athletes were those at the very short
events like 100M or less (Falls, 1977; Ford, 1984). Shorter legs will generally have a
lower moment of inertia, or resistance to movement, than longer ones and so is
beneficial in very short events. All the evidence illustrates body proportions as a kind
of innate condition of a successful athlete, despite of the physical and psychological
aspects.
Many researchers have devoted on the topic about the relationship between body
15
segment measurements and motor performance of children (e.g., Suchomel, 2002;
Morris et al., 1981). Payne and Isaacs (2005) advocated that lack of balance is always
a major obstacle for the children, due to their high center of gravity and small base of
support. As a result, it is believed that child’s high center of gravity sometimes makes
them difficult to come to a fast, complete stop when the activity involves a fast
forward or backward movement (Isaacs, 1976). Besides, the leg length is also
believed to have influence in motor performance. Dintiman and Ward (2003) pointed
out that leg length is one of the three factors that can account for individual
differences in sprinting speed. For the arm length, many researchers note that greater
shoulder width and arm length could be an advantage in throwing tasks (e.g.,
Haubenstricker & Sapp, 1980).
Even in the sport field of Hong Kong, researches have focused on the motor
skills development and anthropometric characteristics of children. In 2006, Wong and
Cheung developed normative scores in gross motor skills performance for Hong Kong
children aged 3 to 10 years, using the Test of Gross Motor Development-Second
Edition (TGMD-2). Their results showed that among the six object control skills
(striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick, overhand throw, and
underhand roll); “kick” was the highest score while “overhand throw” was the lowest
score. A database about body proportions of 2193 Hong Kong Chinese children aged
16
4 to 16 years was developed (Cheng, Leung & Lau, 1996). The standing height,
sitting height and arm span were measured and the results showed that the Chinese
children had proportional limb segmental length relative to the trunk that differed
significantly from the proportionally longer limbs in whites and blacks.
Researchers have studied the relationship between physical performances and
body proportions of athletes from different kinds of sports (e.g., Mayhew, 1993;
Desgorces et al., 2004). To the present investigator’s knowledge, there were very few
studies that have investigated the relationship between motor skills and
anthropometric measures of body segments of the kindergarten children, especially
for the Asian children.
The purpose of this study was to determine the motor skill performance and the
anthropometric measures of the body segments in the Hong Kong kindergarten
children, and their relationship. In other words, the intent was to investigate the
relationship between arm length and throwing skills; leg length and kicking skills etc.
To access the motor skill performance of the preschoolers, the Test of Gross Motor
Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000) is a suitable and reliable tool.
On the other hand, anthropometric measurements were used to determine the body
segments of the children, such as the stature, body weight, Body Mass Index (BMI),
length of arm and leg.
17
Statement of Problem
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the motor
skill performance and the anthropometric measures of the body segments in the
kindergarten children in Hong Kong. The researcher also attempted to find out the
best linear combination of variables explaining the variance for the raw scores of the
locomotor subtest as well as the object control subtest. Totally six locomotor skills,
six object control skills and nine anthropometric measurements were measured.
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses and questions were set in this study:
1. There would be no relationship between the raw scores of locomotor subtest and
anthropometric measures of the body segments in the kindergarten children.
2. There would be no relationship between the raw scores of object control subtest
and anthropometric measures of the body segments in the kindergarten children.
3. What would be the best linear combination of variables (stature, body weight,
BMI, thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length,
hand length) explaining the variance for the raw scores of the locomotor subtest in
kindergarten children?
4. What would be the best linear combination of variables (stature, body weight,
BMI, thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length,
18
hand length) explaining the variance for the raw scores of the object control
subtest in kindergarten children?
Definition of Terms
The following terms were operationally defined especially for this study:
Motor Development, Motor Skills and Motor Performance
Motor development is a human process; it is the changes that occur in our ability
to move and our movement through the lifespan. Clark and Whitall (1989) defined
motor development as “the changes in motor behavior over the lifespan and the
processes which underlie these changes” (p. 194). It is important that understanding
the way people normally develop movement skills throughout the lifespan enables
professionals to diagnose problems in those individuals who may be developing
abnormally.
A similar term is motor skills, which are actions that involve the movement of
muscles in the body (Payne & Isaacs, 2005). By assessing the performance of
different kinds of motor skills, the researchers can determine whether a child’s motor
development is developed appropriately, when compared to others in the same age
period. Motor skills can be categorized into fine motor skills and gross motor skills
(Payne & Isaacs, 2005). The former one is primarily performed by the small muscles
or muscle groups, like drawing, typing; while the latter one is primarily performed by
19
the large muscles or muscle groups, such as walking, running. The development of
gross motor skills was regarded as a prominent element in ensuring that children were
equipped with the competencies to incorporate and maintain regular physical activity
throughout their lives (Taggart & Keegan, 1997).
This study focuses on the motor performance of kindergarten children in Hong
Kong, and delimited to the gross motor skills. The Test of Gross Motor
Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000) was used to assess the skills
of the children and the assessment protocols of the test were standardized for all
participants according to the test manual of TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000).
Body Proportions and Body Segments
In 1988, Timothy et al. claimed that “the ancient Greeks, as well as sculptors and
painters of the Renaissance, measured the human body to estimate body proportions
and, thus, reproduce life-like images of varying sizes” (p. 97). In art, body proportions
are the study of relation of animal body, parts to each other and the whole, which is
essential for depicting the overall figure. An example is the average human head is
about one seventh of its body. However, the proportion standards vary among racial
groups. Blacks have, on the average, shorter trunks, longer upper and lower
extremities, and more slender hips (Eveleth & Tanner, 1976; Malina et al., 1974).
Some other data also indicate that Asiatic populations have relatively shorter lower
20
extremities (Evaleth & Tannerm 1976; Kondo & Eto, 1975; Tanner et al., 1982). Apart
from the height and length of extremities, body proportions also include the weight,
width and girth of different body parts etc, which are all measured by a standardized
method.
Body segments are different parts of body such as forearm, upper arm, thigh,
lower leg etc. The length of the body segments are requisites for finding out the body
proportion, and are the emphasis in this study. In this study, anthropometric measures
of the body segments include nine selected areas: stature, body weight, BMI, thigh
length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length and hand
length.
Anthropometry
“Anthrop-” refers to human being and anthropometry is a standardized method to
measure the size and proportion of the human body (Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996).
Anthropometric measurements, like stature, weight, circumferences, skinfolds, and
skeletal diameters are always measured for assessing body composition or to evaluate
the health and nutritional status of populations (Timothy et al., 1988). Nevertheless,
only the relationship between certain anthropometric measurements and motor skills
were emphasized in this study. According to Heyward and Stolarczyk (1996),
anthropometric methods are relatively simple, inexpensive, and do not require a high
21
degree of technical skill and training. In this study, the measurement sites and
techniques were standardized according to Ross and Marfell-Jones (1991) and
supported by the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry.
Kindergarten Children
Kindergarten is a form of education for young children which serves as a
transition from home to the commencement of more formal schooling. Children are
taught to develop basic skills through creative play and social interaction. In most
countries kindergarten is part of the preschool system. In this study, the kindergarten
children were defined as those of pre-school age (aged 3 to 5), and studied in the
kindergarten in Hong Kong.
Delimitations
The study was delimited to the followings:
1. The participants of the study were delimited to children of the kindergarten school
from K1 to K3 aged between 3 to 5 years old.
2. In this study, participants who aged no more than 4 were defined as 3 years old;
the one who aged no more than 5 were defined as 4 years old; and the one who
aged no more than 6 were defined as 5 years old. In other words, all grade K1
children were categorized to age of 3, while grade K2 children were categorized to
age of 4 and grade K3 children were categorized to age of 5.
22
3. 10 boys and 10 girls were selected by random in grade K1 (n = 20) and grade K3
(n = 20) while 11 boys and 9 girls were selected randomly in grade K2 (n = 20).
All participants were selected from the Hong Kong Baptist University
Kindergarten (N = 60).
4. The tests were conducted during their play time in two separate days.
5. The Test of Gross Motor development-Second Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000)
and nine anthropometric measurements were conducted.
6. The participants were required to perform two trials in each motor performance,
and each anthropometric site was measured twice.
Limitations
The study was limited by the following factors:
1. Due to the small sample size (N = 60), the result of this study could not produce a
good generalization.
2. The participants’ attitude toward the test might affect the results of the study.
3. As two trials were performed in each motor skill, learning effect might occur and
affect the results of the study.
4. The participants might learn from the experience of others which might lead
occurrence of learning effect.
5. For anthropometric measurement, it is ideal for the subjects to wear swimming
23
costumes. In this study, subjects were required to wear minimal clothing, yet it
might still affect the results of the test.
6. To present the result and make comparison in a more convenient way in chapter 4,
all grade K1 children were categorized to age of 3, while grade K2 children were
categorized to age of 4 and grade K3 children were categorized to age of 5. The
difference with the actual age of each participant may affect the precision of the
comparisons made.
Significance of Study
Many researchers had successfully shown the correlation between certain body
proportions and motor skills (e.g., Dintiman & Ward, 2003; Haubenstricker & Sapp,
1980). However, there is a lack of studies focusing on the Hong Kong Chinese
kindergarten children. This study provides data on the topic and helps to understand
the motor performance of the Hong Kong young children. Besides, the
anthropometric and motor skills data of the children can further be compared to the
pre-established standard set in other countries, so to determine the status of the Hong
Kong children.
The result of the study can be beneficial to two groups of people, the children
and the Physical Education teachers and coaches. Once the correlation between the
motor skills and anthropometric measurements have been established, it allows the
24
teachers and parents know more about their children’s motor skill inherent ability; and
the kind of motor skills and related sports they are potentially good at. On the other
hand, the information is useful for the teachers and coaches to form different groups
based on children’s motor abilities. It served as references for them, to know more
about the specific body proportions and the relative potential motor ability.
25
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature of the study was focused on five aspects: (a) motor skills
performance of kindergarten children; (b) relationship between motor skills
performance and body proportions; (c) other variables that correlated to motor
performance; (d) use of anthropometric data; and (e) summary.
Motor Skills Performance of Kindergarten Children
Movement is the primary form of expression in a child’s early days. Children use
movement instinctively, expressing their feelings, thoughts, and desires through their
bodies, in ways that are spontaneous and imaginative (Taylor, 1975). However, the
fitness levels of today’s youth have declined over the past two decades (Pate, Ross,
Dotson & Gilbert, 1985). Modernization, increase in television watching and decrease
in safe outdoor play areas are thought to contribute to the decline, which has reduced
the opportunity for young children to run, jump, and move their bodies. To cope with
this problem, many researchers made efforts to examine the motor ability of the
children and design appropriate motor training programs for them (e.g., Wang, 2004;
Laban, 1980).
In 2006, Wong and Cheung conducted a study and provided normative
information on gross motor skills performance of the Hong Kong Chinese children. A
26
total number of 1251 children aged from 3 to 10 years participated in the Test of
Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000). Their results
indicated that the 630 children aged from 3 to 5 years performed best in run, jump and
leap in the locomotor subtest (run, gallop, leap, hop, horizontal jump and slide). For
the object control subtest (striking a stationary ball, dribbling, kick, catch, overhead
throw and underhand roll), kick, dribbling and striking a stationary ball received the
highest score. Wong and Cheung also found that boys did better in object control
skills while boys and girls did almost the same on locomotor skills.
Gender difference in motor performance has been received considerable attention
from the researchers. It was supposed that the difference increases through the
preschool years (Eaton & Enns, 1986). According to Haubenstricker and Seefeldt
(1986), gender differences favoring boys, in motor performance had been verified for
children as young as 2.5 years in the standing long jump and 3 years in the overhand
throw. On the contrary, Broverman, Klaiber, Kobayashi and Vogel (1968) suggested
that females outperformed males in tasks that required rapid and skillful repetition,
articulation and coordination. In 2003, a research which investigated the Hong Kong
children’s motor performance was shown by Lam, Ip, Lui and Koong (2003). A total
of 1377 K1 to K3 children aged from 3 years to 6 years participated in a self-designed
test. In the gross motor test, seven items were selected such as overhand and
27
underhand throw. The result reflected that boys were superior to girls on throwing
task while girls performed better than boys on static balance. The same findings were
shown by an earlier study (Toriola & Igbokwe, 1986), who investigated the age and
sex differences in motor performance of pre-school Nigerian children. A list of motor
tests items were administrated to 341 young Nigerian children aged 3 to 5 years such
as running, catching, tennis ball throw etc. The result showed that boys consistently
performed better than the girls in four of the six motor tests: catching, standing long
jump, tennis ball throw and speed run.
On the other hand, another research examined the gender differences in motor
performances got a different result (Raudsepp & Paasuke, 1995). A total of 66
children (33 boys and 27 girls) participated in the study and concluded with no sex
difference in the running skills. In 2002, Pennington and Kelly found a similar result.
In their study, the gross and fine motor abilities in preschool aged children in West
Virginia were examined. The subjects were 21 males and 16 females and data were
collected through the West Virginia Educare Initiative. The result revealed the
insignificant gender difference in either gross motor or fine motor abilities in
preschool aged children. Besides, in the study of Elisana, Konstantina and Vasilios
(2005), differences between boys and girls at the age of five concerning the
performance in gross motor skills were examined. The Gross Motor Development
28
Test-Second Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000) was administrated to 50 girls and 45
boys. Again, the results displayed no significant gender difference in gross motor
skills performance. These results were also supported by Gallahue and Ozmun (1995),
who referred that the physical characteristics of children aged three to five years old
were the same for both genders.
Not only gender contributes to the differences in motor performance, age is also
a significant variable that can affect motor performance (Haywood & Getchell, 2001).
According to Frederick (1977), significant yearly increment was found in standing
long jump, vertical jump, and distance throwing tasks for children ages three through
five. In the research of Morris, Williams, Atwater and Wilmore (1982), the
relationship of age and sex to the performance of 3-6 year olds on seven motor
performance tests were examined. Age was found to be related more to performance
than was gender on balance, scramble, catching, speed run, standing long jump, tennis
ball throw for distance, and softball throw for distance tests. The research of Toriola
and Igbokwe (1986) also demonstrated the same result. The age and sex differences in
motor performance of pre-school Nigerian children were investigated. A fairly linear
trend of improvement with age was successfully shown in the motor performances of
the subjects. Similarly, Lam et al. (2003) found that the kindergarten children
improved their overhand throw ability gradually with age, from 8 to 13.9 feet. They
29
suggested that young children’s overall gross motor performance was age-related.
Furthermore, in the research of Wong and Cheung (2006), age difference was found
among the participants. The percentage of participants who mastered the gross motor
skills was presented in the study. Running received 1.7% in the age of 3 and increased
to 73.1% in the age of 6; kicking received 0% in the age of 3 and became 63.5% in the
age of 6.
Relationship between Motor Skills Performance and Body Proportions
Most of the researches have shown that body proportions were correlated with
the motor skills development of individuals (e.g., Loovis et al., 2003; Dintiman &
Ward, 2003). However, there was an exception. Through 60 free throws performed by
15 girls from Michigan and 18 girls from Puerto Rico (mean age 10), Kinnunen et al.
(2001) indicated that the correlations between anthropometric measurements and free
throw shooting performance were low.
On the other hand, a research which examined the hand locomotor functions got
a different result. Loesch, Lefranchi and Ruffolo (1990) evaluated the relationships
between hand locomotor functions and dermatoglyphic characteristics and body
structure on 71 adults (30 males and 41 females). By the locomotor function tests and
35 anthropometric measurements, they successfully showed the size and intensity of
patterns on the thumb and index finger, were correlated to the precision tests
30
involving complicated manipulation of objects using the two fingers. The same
findings were shown by Loovis and Butterfield (2003), who examined the relationship
between hand length and catching performance by 257 children in grade K2 (142 boys
and 115 girls). The performance was determined by the number of successful catches
(0-5) and the result reflected that hand length contributed significantly to catching
accuracy and catching form. Besides, another research about the influence of general
body hand-specific anthropometric dimensions on handgrip strength in boys
participating in handball and basketball training was conducted (Visnapuu & Jurimea,
2007). Among 193 boys aged 10 to 17 years old, it was found that finger lengths and
perimeters of the hand significantly correlated with the maximal handgrip strength. In
1996, Raudsepp and Jurimae stated that throwing results were significantly correlated
with several somatic dimensions like femur width and height. In this study, 203 boys
of 7 to 10 years old were being accessed on overhand throwing, body fatness and
other anthropometric measurements.
Not only motor skill performed by hand was studied, Graf et al. (2004) evaluated
the effect of BMI on the whole body gross motor development for 668 six years old
children. Children were tested on a body gross motor development test and 6-minute
run. Researchers found that overweight or obesity is associated with a poorer body
gross motor development and endurance performance while the normal BMI children
31
had better result. Another research conducted by Suchomel (2002) tried to examine
the relationship between anthropometric measurements and the achievement of
selected developmental milestones in infants. Sixty-six infants aged from 9 to 34
months and their guardian participated in the study. By a questionnaire about child
achieved independent sitting, crawling, and walking, correlation was shown between
infant length and sitting and walking. Suchomel (2002) suggested that infants who
measure greater for length at birth and 12-14 months achieve sitting and walking later
than their peers.
Other Variables that Correlated to Motor Performance
Aforementioned, age and gender greatly influence the motor performance of the
children. Nevertheless, many other variables correlated to the motor performance as
well. They ranged from internal factor such as the child’s temperament, to the external
factor such as the home environment. In this section, focal point has been put on
seven variables: social status, social participation, temperament, conceptual
development, school adjustment, physical activity level and home environment.
Most of the above variables have successfully shown correlation with motor
performance; however, Steigelman & Gwen (1981) found the role of motor
performance in the social status of preschool children differed among age groups. In
their study, 1201 children aged 3 to 6 years were examined on the relationship
32
between motor performance and social status. Fourteen motor skill measures and a
paired-comparison sociometric instrument were used for assessment. The analysis of
variance indicated no significant effect of either high or low motor skill on the
popularity of 3 to 4 years old children while the highest motor skill ratings for 5 to 6
years old children were significantly more popular than the lowest motor skilled peers,
especially among the boys. The study suggested extremely high or low levels of
motor performance had a significant effect on social status of children as early as 5
years of age.
Similarly, Yair and Orit (2006) stated that motor function may not be a major
factor in getting a full social participation picture. The subjects of the study were 88
children (mean age 5.83 years) recruited from seven randomly selected mainstream
public kindergartens in Israel. The social participation information was collected
through the Play Observation Scale (Rubin, 2001), focused on the social play, reticent
behavior, solitary-passive play and solitary-functional play. For the motor skills
assessment, it was done at each child’s home by the trained occupational therapy
students. As a result, children with high motor abilities displayed a higher frequency
of social play and a lower frequency of social reticence compared with children of
average or low motor abilities. Moreover, the former was found to have a lower
frequency of solitary-functional play. Nevertheless, solitary-passive play was not
33
significantly associated with motor abilities of the children.
On the contrary, using temperament as a variable, Zapletalove and Medekova
(2003) pointed out the personal traits of boys and girls is closely linked with their
motor performance. A total of 903 children from Slovak primary and secondary
schools participated in the study. The level of motor performance was assessed by a
battery of 7 tests; in the meantime information about personal features of children and
their sport activities were received from the children themselves as well as from their
parents by means of a questionnaire. Sanguine and choleric types showed an above
average level of motor performance in comparison to melancholic and phlegmatic
types and there was no remarkable difference concerning age. Besides, the correlation
of conceptual development with motor skills for a Turkish sample of kindergarten
children was demonstrated (Aynur, Esra, Neriman & Hülya, 2007). Using the Bracken
Basic Concept Scale-Revised (Bracker, 1998) and the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of
Motor Proficiency-Short Form (Bruininks, 1978), 19 girls and 17 boys of kindergarten
age were examined. Aynur et al. (2007) concluded that the success in learning to write
and read required fine bilateral motor coordination and visoumotor control.
Not only can the academic ability predicted from the motor performance of the
children, but also the school adjustment. A battery of standard assessments of basic
motor functions was administrated to 71 five years old children who sit for the last
34
year of kindergarten. A year later, their adjustment to school was assessed through a
series of questionnaires completed by the children and their class teachers. The results
revealed that motor functions showed significant predictive value to both scholastic
adaptation and social and emotional adjustment to school. Good motor ability could
serve as a buffer to the challenges presented to the children in school transition (Orit,
Dov & Yair, 2007). In the study of Medekova, Zapletalova & Havlicek (2000),
relationships between the level of physical activity and motor performances were
analyzed in a sample of 1738 children from the first to third grades of elementary
schools. Data of the physical activity level and level of skillfulness of children rated
according to their motor performance were obtained by means of a questionnaire. The
results confirmed the higher level of motor skills in children with higher physical
activity.
The final variable was home environment. In 1982, Botha conducted a study to
determine the relationship between selected factors in the home environment and
selected motor abilities of 36 to 42 months old children. Eight home environment
variables were selected and the motor ability measurements like bouncing, catching,
running and beam walk were assessed. Similar to most of the above studies, the result
showed the correlation between the variable and motor performance. Avoidance of
restriction and punishment significantly predicted dynamic balance and eye-hand
35
coordination while the gross motor toys significantly predicted eye-hand coordination
as measured by bouncing and catching. On the other hand, independence from
parental control exhibited a negative relationship with dynamic balance as measured
by the beam walk.
Use of Anthropometric Data
Anthropometry is always one of the hottest topics in the field. Malina (1988)
believed anthropometry was helpful in understanding the human morphological
variability while Bouchard (1988) used it for identifying the relative contribution to
anthropometric variation of genetic and environmental factors. Johnston and Martorell
(1988) emphasized the use of measurement to evaluate healthy and nutritional status
of the population. On the other hand, Himes and Frisancho (1988) reviewed the use of
joint, bone, and skeletal breaths and depth to characterize body build and physique.
The subject of fatness was used by Bray and Gray (1988) for estimating body fat,
whereas Van-Itallie (1988) discussed the use of anthropometry to assess the risk of
mortality from coronary heart disease. In addition, Wilmore (1988) associated
anthropometric variables to function and performance, and emphasized on the use of
anthropometric data in sports medicine and athletics. All of these showed the
widespread use and usefulness of anthropometry.
In this study, nine anthropometric data were selected: weight, stature, Body Mass
36
Index, thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length
and hand length. The common use of the data was discussed in the section.
Use of Stature Data
Stature was a major indicator of general body size and of bone length. It played
an important role in screening for malnutrition or disease. It was also useful in the
interpretation of weight (Gordan, Chumlea & Roche, 1988). Recumbent length, arm
span and estimation from the knee height may be used in place of stature, when it
could not be measured (Gordan et al., 1988). In Appendix A and B, the height-for-age
percentiles for boys and girls aged from 2 to 5 years old were provided respectively
(World Health Organization, 2006).
Use of Weight Data
Weight was a composite measure of total body size. It was important in
screening for obesity, unusual growth, and undernutrition (Gordan et al., 1988). The
relative body weight is the ratio of current body mass to predict normal mass for a
given height. It had been used extensively for insurance purposes and the ideal mass
for a given height was usually defined statistically from large population surveys,
such as the weight-for-height data from the Commonwealth Department of Healthy in
Australia (Abernethy, Olds, Eden, Neill & Baines, 1996). It was believed that men
and women were at greater risk of some forms of cancer when their relative weight
37
was more than 120% normal (Abernethy et al., 1996). In Appendix C and D, the
weight-for-age percentiles for boys and girls aged from 2 to 5 years old were provided
respectively (World Health Organization, 2006).
Use of Body Mass Index
Body Mass Index (BMI) is the ratio of body weight to height squared: BMI
(kg/m2) = WT (in kg) / HT2 (in m). It was best viewed as a measure of heaviness but
not differentiate between the non-fat and fat masses (Sjöstrom, 1992). BMI had been
related to the total mortality and some specific diseases. Bray (1992) indicated the low
mortality for individuals with BMI between 20-30, whereas high mortality between
35-40. High BMI was also associated with gall bladder disease and elevated
triglyceride levels (Bray, 1992; Seidell et al., 1992). On the contrary, low BMI (less
than 20) was correlated with digestive and pulmonary illness (Bray, 1992). It was
essential for people to keep their BMI within the ideal range. The ideal range of BMI
for adult and children was different. At the same time, it may also vary in different
countries. The normal BMI range for adult Europids is 18.5 to less than 25 while the
range for adult Asians was 18.5 to less than 23 (Centre for Health Protection, 2007).
In Appendix E and F, the Body Mass Index-for-age percentiles for boys and girls aged
from 2 to 5 years old were provided respectively (World Health Organization, 2006).
Use of Segment Lengths Data
38
Stature is a composite measurement of several segment lengths, such as thigh
length, forehand length etc. A specific segment length, and more important, the ratios
between segment lengths, were of diagnostic utility in studies of dysmorphology
(Robinow & Chumlea, 1982; Smith, 1976). The length of lower extremity (thigh
length, lower leg length and foot length) was useful in studies of body proportions and
in human engineering (Martin, Carter, Hendy & Malina, 1988). On the other hand, the
upper extremity (upper arm length, forearm length and hand length) measures were
always applied in human engineering studies of workspace design and in
biomechanical analyses of human motion (Martin et al., 1988).
Summary
As observed above, motor performance is closely linked with age and gender. It
is a common reflector as well as predictor. Besides, the review of literature displayed
the widespread use of anthropometric data in predicting the health status and sport
performance of the population. However, the relationship of anthropometric measures
and motor skill development of the Hong Kong kindergarten children has not yet been
explored. In this study, one of the physiological variables, the anthropometric
characteristic, was assessed to find out its relationship with the motor performance of
the target group. The researcher also attempted to perform regression equations
between the two measurements.
39
Chapter 3
METHOD
The method of this study was divided into the following sections: (a) sample of
selection; (b) measuring instruments; (c) testing procedures; (d) collection of data; and
(e) treatment of data.
Sample of Selection
In this study, 60 children from the Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten
were invited to be the study participants. Stratified sampling and random sampling
were used. Among the 60 subjects, 10 boys and 10 girls were selected randomly from
grade K1 while 11 boys and 9 girls from grade K2 and 10 boys and 10 girls were
selected randomly from grade K3; total N = 60.
Measuring Instruments
A questionnaire with demographic questions was prepared to collect data such as
gender, age, exercise habits, interest in sport etc (see Appendix G). For the exercise
habits, the participation level was indicated by 0 to 4 points (0 equal to absent of
participation in a week; 1 equal to once per week; 2 equal to twice per week; 3 equal
to three or more times per week and 4 equal to everyday). One time participation was
defined to participate in activities involving large muscle groups, and over 30 minutes
duration. For the interest in sport, the level was shown by 1 to 5 points, with 1 equal
40
to lowest interest and 5 equal to highest interest. Besides, two separate record sheets
were designed for the TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000) and anthropometric measurement test
(see Appendix H and Appendix I), ensuring the efficiency and accuracy of data
collection.
To find out the motor skills development of the participants, the Test of Gross
Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000) was adopted. It is a
norm and criterion-referenced measure of gross motor skills for children aged 3 to 10
years old. The TGMD-2 contains two subtests, the locomotor subtest (run, gallop, hop,
leap, horizontal jump, slide) and object control subtest (striking a stationary ball,
stationary dribble, catch, kick, overhand throw, underhand roll). In the TGMD-2,
individual performance was scored with 1 or 0 to show the presence or absence of that
particular skill while each skill ranged from 6 to 10 points. Raw scores could be added
up across skills to form a sub-set of locomotor or object control, with ranged from 0
to 48 points. The two sub-set total raw score could be converted into standard scores
so to achieve a Gross Motor Development Quotient (GMDQ) by summing them. The
GMDQ could be used to determine the gross motor skill performance of an individual,
or use for comparison with the standardized norm.
The assessment protocols of the test were standardized for all participants
according to the test manual of TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000). The instruments of test
41
including a plastic bat, a batting tee, a bean bag, two 4-inch lightweight balls, two
tennis balls, two 8- to 10-inch playground ball and tapes in red, yellow, blue and black
color (see Appendix J). In regard to the reliability for the TGMD-2, the reliability
coefficients for the total scale, locomotor and object control subscales were 0.91, 0.85
and 0.88 respectively (Ulrich, 2000).
To measure body segments, standard anthropometric measurements were used.
For the equipments, a girth tape was used to measure stature, replacing the
stadiometer in laboratory (Norton et al., 1996). An electronic scale was also
recommended by Norton et al. (1996) for measuring body weight, which was claimed
to be more durable and flexible. Besides, a sliding caliper was used to measure bone
breadths and lengths: thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length,
forearm length and hand length (Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996). Timothy et al. (1988)
indicated that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to project a standardized
anthropometric measurement test battery that would be appropriate for all purposes.”
(p. 158). A specific test battery is needed to be devised according to the purpose for
taking the measurements. In this study, young children’s gross motor skills which
involved large muscles and muscle groups were measured. Related to this, nine
measuring sites were selected and they were mainly focused on the length of arm and
leg.
42
Testing Procedures
The test was taken on the 4th, March, 2008 (Tuesday) and 6th, March, 2008
(Thursday), from 11AM to 3PM in the Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten.
The TGMD-2 was conducted in the outdoor play area and the anthropometric
measurement test was conducted in the classroom. On the first testing day, 11 boys
from grade K2 and 20 children (10 boys and 10 girls) from grade K3 participated in
the research. On the second day, 9 girls from grade K2 and 20 children (10 boys and
10 girls) from grade K1 participated in it. At the beginning of the two testing days, the
examiner explained the testing procedures to the participants in details. Then, their
names were asked and a name tag was provided for each of them for identification.
The anthropometric measures of body segments were followed by the TGMD-2.
The TGMD-2 was operated with the following sequences: run, gallop, hop, leap,
horizontal jump, slide, striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick,
overhand throw and underhand roll. The participants queued behind the red line and
performed the skill within 50 feet of clear space, which was marked with yellow and
blue tapes. A black line was also marked to provide guidance to the child (see Figure
1). The examiner preceded the assessment with an accurate demonstration and verbal
description of the skill, i.e., run. Then, a practice trial was provided for the child who
queued at the front, to assure the child understands what to do. One additional
43
demonstration was provided when the child did not appear to understand the task.
After that, two test trials were given to the subjects and the raw skill score was given
for each item ranged from 0-2. When the first subject was done, the second one at the
queue started the test with the practice trial, an additional demonstration when he or
she did not appear to understand, and two test trials. The procedures were repeated
until the last participant was completed. The test was then followed by the second
skill task, i.e., gallop and the process were same as before. However, the sequence of
the queue was alternate so that one child did not always go first or last.
Figure 1. Setting of the TGMD-2
In order to assure the consistency of the data, one examiner demonstrated the
skill while another examiner observed and scored all participants’ performance. The
44
scorer was trained with the TGMD-2 scoring exercises for 6 hours. The assessment
protocols were also standardized for all participants according to the test manual of
TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000). Moreover, a digital video camera was set near the examiners,
so that it allowed the examiner to review the videotapes and evaluated the
performances of all participants.
Locomotor Subtest-Run
50 feet of running space and 8 feet of safe stopping distance were required for
this test (Ulrich, 2000). The child ran as fast as he or she can from the yellow line to
the blue line when the examiner said “Go”. For the second trial, the child ran from the
blue line back to the yellow line and then waited at the end of the queue. According to
Ulrich (2000), the performance criteria for run were as follows: arms move in
opposition to legs, elbows bent; brief period where both feet are off the ground;
narrow foot placement landing on heel or toe (i.e., not flat footed); and nonsupport leg
bent approximately 90 degrees (i.e., close to buttocks).
Locomotor Subtest-Gallop
25 feet distance was required for this test (Ulrich, 2000). From the yellow line,
the child galloped to the middle between the yellow and blue line and repeated a
second trial by galloping back to the yellow line. According to Ulrich (2000), the
performance criteria for gallop were as follows: arms bent and lifted to waist level at
45
takeoff; a step forward with the lead foot followed by a step with the trailing foot to a
position adjacent to or behind the lead foot; brief period when both feet are off the
floor; maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops.
Locomotor Subtest-Hop
15 feet of clear space was required (Ulrich, 2000). The child was told to hop
three times on his or her preferred foot and then three times on the other foot towards
the blue line. Repeat a second trial by hopping back to the yellow line. According to
Ulrich (2000), the performance criteria for hop were as follows: nonsupport leg
swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force; foot of nonsupport leg remains
behind body; arms flexed and swing forward to produce force; takes off and lands
three consecutive times on preferred foot; takes off and lands three consecutive times
on non-preferred foot.
Locomotor Subtest-Leap
A minimum of 20 feet of clear space and a beanbag was needed in this test
(Ulrich, 2000). First, a beanbag was placed between the yellow and blue line, i.e., 10
feet away from the yellow line. The child stood behind the yellow line and ran and
leaped over the beanbag. Repeat a second trial by leaping back to the yellow line.
According to Ulrich (2000), the performance criteria for leap were as follows: take off
on one foot and land on the opposite foot; a period where both feet are off the ground
46
longer than running; forward reach with the arm opposite the lead foot.
Locomotor Subtest-Horizontal Jump
10 feet of clear space was required in this test (Ulrich, 2000). The child started
behind the yellow line and jump as far as he or she can. Repeat a second trial from the
yellow line again. According to Ulrich (2000), the performance criteria for horizontal
jump were as follows: preparatory movement includes flexion of both knees with
arms extended behind body; arms extend forcefully forward and upward reaching full
extension above the head; take off and land on both feet simultaneously; arms are
thrust downward during landing.
Locomotor Subtest-Slide
A minimum of 25 feet of clear space was required in this test (Ulrich, 2000). The
child was told to stand sideway to the performing space, i.e., left foot parallel to the
yellow line. The first trial began by sliding from the yellow line to the middle of the
yellow and blue line, i.e., slid to the left. Then, repeat a second trial by sliding back to
the yellow line, i.e., slid to the right. According to Ulrich (2000), the performance
criteria for slide were as follows: body turned sideways so shoulders are aligned with
the line on the floor; a step sideways with lead foot followed by a slide of the trailing
foot to a point next to the lead foot; a minimum of four continuous step-slide cycles to
the right; a minimum of four continuous step-slide cycles to the left.
47
Object Control Subtest-Striking a Stationary Ball
A plastic bat, a batting tee and two 4-inch lightweight balls were needed in this
test (Ulrich, 2000). The batting tee was adjusted to the child’s waist level. In the
performing area, the child was told to hold the bat with both hand and hit the ball hard.
For time saving, a second trial was done by using another ball. According to Ulrich
(2000), the performance criteria for striking a stationary ball were as follows:
dominant hand grips bat above non-dominant hand; non-preferred side of body faces
the imaginary tosser with feet parallel; hip and shoulder rotation during swing;
transfers body weight to front foot; bat contacts ball.
Object Control Subtest-Stationary Dribble
An 8- to 10-inch playground ball was needed in this test (Ulrich, 2000). The test
was held in the performing area. The child was told to dribble the ball four times
without moving his or her feet, using one hand, and then stop by catching the ball.
Repeat a second trial. According to Ulrich (2000), the performance criteria for
stationary dribble were as follows: contacts ball with one hand at about belt level;
pushes ball with fingertips (not a slap); ball contacts surface in front of or to the
outside of foot on the preferred side; maintains control of ball for four consecutive
bounces without having to move the feet to retrieve it.
Object Control Subtest-Catch
48
The 8- to 10-inch playground ball replaced the 4-inch plastic ball as mentioned
by Ulrich (2000) in the manual. 15 feet of clear space was also required in this test
(Ulrich, 2000). The child and the tosser stood 15 feet away of each other and the latter
tossed the ball underhand directly to the child with a slight arc aiming for his or her
chest. The child was told to catch the ball with both hands for two times. According to
Ulrich (2000), the performance criteria for catch were as follows: preparation phase
where hands are in front of the body and elbows are flexed; arms extend while
reaching for the ball as it arrives; ball is caught by hands only.
Object Control Subtest-Kick
Two 8- to 10-inch playground ball, a bean bag and 30 feet of clear space were
needed for this test (Ulrich, 2000). The ball was placed on the top of the bean bag
between the yellow and blue line, i.e., 10 feet away from the yellow line. The child
waited behind the yellow line and then ran up and kicked the ball hard. A second trial
was repeated by using another ball. According to Ulrich (2000), the performance
criteria for kick were as follows: rapid continuous approach to the ball; an elongated
stride or leap immediately prior to ball contact; non-kicking foot placed even with or
slightly in back of the ball; kicks ball with instep of preferred foot (shoelaces) or toe.
Object Control Subtest-Overhand Throw
Two tennis balls and 20 feet of clear space were required in this test (Ulrich,
49
2000). The child was told to stand behind the yellow line and threw the ball hard. A
second trial was done by using another ball. According to Ulrich (2000), the
performance criteria for overhand throw were as follows: windup is initiated with
downward movement of hand/arm; rotates hip and shoulders to a point where the
non-throwing side faces the wall; weight is transferred by stepping with the foot
opposite the throwing hand; follow-through beyond ball release diagonally across the
body toward the non-preferred side.
Object Control Subtest-Underhand Roll
Two tennis balls, a bean bag and 25 feet of clear space were required in this test
(Ulrich, 2000). The bean bag placed between the yellow and blue line, i.e., 20 feet
away from the yellow line. The child was told to stand behind the yellow line and
rolled the ball hard towards the bean bag. A second trial was repeated by using
another tennis ball. According to Ulrich (2000), the performance criteria for
underhand roll were as follows: preferred hand swings down and back, reaching
behind the trunk while chest faces cones; strides forward with foot opposite the
preferred hand toward the cones; bends knees to lower body; releases ball close to the
floor so ball does not bounce more than 4 inches high.
As soon as the 12 motor skills were performed and scored, the anthropometric
measurement session began. The 9 selected sites were stature, body weight, BMI,
50
thigh length (trochanterion-tibiale laterale), lower leg length (tibiale laterale), foot
length, upper arm length (acromiale-radiale), forearm length (radiale-stylion), and
hand length (midstplion-dactplion; Ross & Marfell-Jones, 1991). All the
measurements were measured on site, with Body Mass Index as the only exception
that calculated afterward. Throughout the measurement session, the subject stood
relaxed, arms comfortably to the side and feet slightly apart (Norton et al., 1996). Also,
they were required to present themselves in minimal clothing. All arm and leg
measurements were taken on the right side (Sellen, 2000).
The anthropometric measurement test was divided into two stations and operated
by two different examiners (see Figure 2). Station one was stature and body weight
measurements. Also, some simple demographic questions were asked verbally and the
questionnaires (see Appendix G) were completed by the examiner in section one. The
thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length and hand
length measurements belong to station two. All the participants queued behind the red
line and the first one came to station one first. When the first child finished, he or she
went to station two, at the same time the second one at the queue came to station one.
Every child moved to the next station when it was readied and until all the subjects
were finished.
51
Figure 2. Setting of the Anthropometric Measurement Session
The testing protocol was standardized according to Ross and Marfell-Jones
(1991) and supported by the International Society for the Advancement of
Kinanthropometry. To ensure the reliability of the measurements, each site was
measured twice, and average value was used.
Measurement of Stature
Due to a loss of about 1% in stature over the course of the day (Reilly, Tyrrell &
Troup, 1984; Wilby, Linge, Reilly & Troup, 1985), all participants were being tested
in the same period of the testing days. In this test, a girth tape and a ruler is required
(Norton et al., 1996). The girth tape was fixed to a wall and checked for height, in
conjunction with a 90° ruler.
The subject was barefooted and stood on a flat surface that is at a right angle to
52
the wall and girth tape. The weight was evenly distributed between both feet, and the
arms were hanging by the sides with pales facing the thighs. The heels were together
touching the wall while the feet were spread at a 60° angle to each other. The head,
scapula, and buttocks were also be touching to the wall. The head was erect with eyes
focused straight ahead. When the subject was instructed to take a deep breath, the
examiner compressed his or her hair and measurement was taken (Heyward &
Stolarczyk, 1996). Standing height is measured to the nearest 0.1 cm and a second
measurement was taken.
Measurement of Body Weight
Again, all subjects were being tested in the same period of the testing days
because body weight exhibits diurnal variation of about 1 kg in children (Sumner &
Whitacre, 1931). An electronic scale was recommended by Norton et al. (1996) in this
test. The model number of the selected scale was BF-682 and manufactured by Tanita
Corporation of America, Inc. in United States. The subject was barefooted with light,
indoor clothing. He or she was told to stand on the centre of the scale without support
and with the weight distributed evenly on both feet. The head was up and the eyes
looked directly ahead (Norton et al., 1996). The measurement was subtracted by 1 kg
for clothing. A second measurement was taken.
Measurement of Thigh Length (trochanterion-tibiale laterale)
53
A sliding caliper was used for measuring thigh length (Heyward & Stolarczyk,
1996). Thigh length is indicated by the distance from the trochanterion to the tibiale
laterale (see Figure 3). Measurement was taken when the subject stood erect with his
or her right side facing the examiner (Norton et al., 1996). A second measurement was
taken.
Figure 3. Thigh Length
Measurement of Lower Leg Length (tibiale laterale)
A sliding caliper was used in this test (Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996). The lower
leg length is indicated by the distance from the floor to the tibiale laterale landmark
(see Figure 4). Again, it was taken when the subject stood erect with his or her right
side facing the examiner (Norton et al., 1996). A second measurement was taken.
54
Figure 4. Lower Leg Length
Measurement of Foot Length
A sliding caliper was used in this test (Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996). The foot
length was indicated by the distance from the longest toe to the most posterior point
on the heel of the foot (see Figure 5) while the subject is standing with the weight
equally distributed on both feet (Norton et al., 1996). Measurement was taken at the
right foot, with the calipers kept parallel to the long axis of the foot. A second
measurement was taken.
Figure 5. Foot Length
55
Measurement of Upper Arm Length (acromiale-radiale)
A sliding caliper was used in measuring upper arm length (Heyward &
Stolarczyk, 1996). It is indicated by the distance between the acromiale and radiale
landmarks (see Figure 6). The subject was told to stand erect with the pales slightly
off the thighs. Measurement was taken with one arm of the caliper was held on the
acromiale while the other placed on the radiale (Norton et al., 1996). The right arm of
the subject was being measured and a second measurement was taken.
Figure 6. Upper Arm Length
Measurement of Forearm Length (radiale-stylion)
A sliding caliper was used in this test (Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996). It is
indicated by the distance between the radiale and stylion landmarks while the subject
assumes the anatomical position (see Figure 7). Measurement was taken when one
caliper arm was held against the radiale and the other placed on the stylion landmark
(Norton et al., 1996). The right arm of the subject was being measured and a second
56
measurement was taken.
Figure 7. Forearm Length
Measurement of Hand Length (midstplion-dactplion)
A sliding caliper was used in this test (Heyward & Stolarczyk, 1996). The hand
length is indicated by the shortest distance from the midstylion line to the dactylion
(see Figure 8). The subject was told to place the right hand in a supinated position and
fingers fully extended. Measurement was taken when one end of the caliper was
placed on the midstylion line while the other end positioned on the most distal point
of the third digit (Norton et al., 1996). A second measurement was taken.
Figure 8. Hand Length
57
Collection of Data
The 60 subjects were tested on two testing days. Prior to data collection,
permission was asked from the principal (see Appendix K). The performance of 12
gross motor skills were first evaluated (run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump, slide,
striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick, overhand throw and
underhand roll). Then, the nine anthropometric measurement sites were measured
(stature, body weight, BMI, thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm
length, forearm length, hand length). The Body Mass Index was calculated from the
height and weight of the subjects.
Treatment of Data
Data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS)
for window 15.0 version computer program. Variables analyzed included gender,
grade (K1, K2 and K3), age, exercise habits, interest in sport, the 9 anthropometric
measurements, the raw scores of each motor skill items, the raw score of the
locomotor subtest and object control subtest, as well as the total raw score for the
TGMD-2. The mean (M), standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum values of
the variables were calculated. The 25th, 50th and 75th percentile score equivalents for
boys and girls separately for grade K1, K2 and K3 on the locomotor subtest, object
control subtest and the total scale of the TGMD-2 were computed.
58
Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation (r) was used to determine
the correlations among the raw scores of the two motor subtests and the nine
anthropometric measurements in the kindergarten children. Furthermore, multiple
regressions were performed to find out what would be the best linear combination of
variables (stature, body weight, BMI, thigh length, lower leg length, foot length,
upper arm length, forearm length, hand length) explaining the variance for the raw
scores of the locomotor subtest as well as the raw scores of the object control subtest.
All statistical tests were performed with the alpha level of 0.05.
59
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between motor
skill performance and the anthropometric measures of body segments in the Hong
Kong kindergarten preschoolers. Also, the researcher attempted to perform two
regression equations between the body measurements and the raw scores of the
locomotor subtest and object control subtest. This chapter was divided into two main
sections, the results and discussions.
Results
The descriptive statistics including the means, standard deviations, minimum and
maximum values on the background information of the participants were first
presented. Then, the testing result of the body measurement and the TGMD-2 were
displayed. The percentage of participants who mastered a certain motor skills at each
grade (K1, K2 and K3), as well as the 25th-, 50th-, 75th-percentiles score equivalent in
all the twelve motor skills were also demonstrated. To find out the relationship
between motor skill performance and the anthropometric measures of body segments,
an analysis of correlation was performed among the raw scores of the two motor
subtests and the nine body measurements of the kindergarten children. Lastly,
multiple regression analyses were used to find out what would be the best linear
60
combination of variables explaining the variance for the raw scores of the locomotor
subtest, as well as the object control subtest.
Descriptive Statistics
A total number of 60 participants (N = 60) participated in the study, at which 31
(n = 31) of them were male while 29 (n = 29) of them were female. Among the
participants, 10 males (n = 10) and 10 females (n = 10) were K1 children, 11 males (n
= 11) and 9 females (n = 9) were K2 children and the last 10 males (N = 10) and 10
females (n = 10) were K3 children.
Table 1 showed the descriptive results of age, exercise habits and interest in sport
of all the participants (N = 60) while Table 2a and Table 2b showed the results of male
(n = 31) and female participants (n = 29) regarding different grades respectively. The
age of all participants ranged from 3.3 to 6.2 years old with a mean age of 4.7 + 0.9
years. The mean ages of the K1, K2 and K3 male participants were 3.7, 4.6 and 5.8
while the one in K1, K2 and K3 female participants were 3.7, 4.7 and 5.5 respectively.
The female participants showed a higher frequency in exercise participation (M
= 2.21 + 1.63) than the males (M = 1.68 + 1.45). In this study, one time exercise
participation was defined to participate in activities involving large muscle groups,
and over 30 minutes duration. On the average, the female participants participated
twice to three or more times in exercise per week while the male participants
61
participated only once to twice a week. Similarly, the female participants showed a
higher degree of interest in exercise (M = 3.55 + 1.55) than the male (M = 3.39 +
1.54). Interest in exercise was reflected by a scale of 1 to 5 and 5 being highly
interested.
Among the 31 male participants, the exercise participation levels of K1 and K3
children in exercise (M = 1.70 + 1.63; M = 1.70 + 1.42) were slightly higher than the
K2 children (M = 1.64 + 1.43). Also, the interest level of the K3 children was the
highest (M = 3.80 + 1.23). Among the 29 female participants, both the exercise
participation level (M = 2.50 + 1.35) and the interest level (M = 4.10 + 1.29) of the
K3 children was the highest.
Table 1 Descriptive Results of Age, Exercise Habit and Interest in Sport of all the Participants (N = 60)
n M SD Minimum MaximumAge (year) 60 4.65 0.86 3.3 6.20 Exercise habitsa 60 1.93 1.55 0.00 4.00 Interest in sportb 60 3.47 1.54 1.00 5.00 a Self-reported on how many times exercise per week b Scores ranged from 1 to 5; 5 being highly interested
62
Table 2a Descriptive Results of Age, Exercise Habit and Interest in Sport of the Male Participants (n = 31) Group n M SD Minimum MaximumAge (year) All 31 4.66 0.90 3.3 6.2 K1 10 3.65 0.27 3.3 4.1 K2 11 4.60 0.25 4.3 5.0 K3 10 5.74 0.37 5.3 6.2 Exercise habitsa All 31 1.68 1.45 0 4 K1 10 1.70 1.63 0 4 K2 11 1.64 1.43 0 4 K3 10 1.70 1.42 0 4 Interest in sportb All 31 3.39 1.54 1 5 K1 10 3.40 1.65 1 5 K2 11 3.00 1.73 1 5 K3 10 3.80 1.23 2 5 a Self-reported on how many times exercise per week b Scores ranged from 1 to 5; 5 being highly interested
63
Table 2b Descriptive Results of Age, Exercise Habit and Interest in Sport of the Female Participants (n = 29) Group n M SD Minimum MaximumAge (year) All 29 4.65 0.83 3.3 6.2 K1 10 3.71 0.33 3.3 4.2 K2 9 4.69 0.27 4.3 5.2 K3 10 5.54 0.34 5.3 6.2 Exercise habitsa All 29 2.21 1.63 0 4 K1 10 2.00 1.83 0 4 K2 9 2.11 1.83 0 4 K3 10 2.50 1.35 0 4 Interest in sportb All 29 3.55 1.55 1 5 K1 10 3.90 1.52 1 5 K2 9 2.56 1.51 1 5 K3 10 4.10 1.29 2 5 a Self-reported on how many times exercise per week b Scores ranged from 1 to 5; 5 being highly interested
Testing Result of the Anthropometric Measurement
The means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values of the
participants on the 9 body measurements of all participants (N = 60) were
summarized in Table 3. Also, in Table 4a and Table 4b, the measurement results of the
male (n = 31) and female participants (n = 29) regarding different grades were
presented. The stature (cm) and body weight (cm) of the male participants (M =
106.71 + 6.19; M = 41.14 + 5.95) were slightly higher than the female participants (M
= 105.26 + 6.22; M = 40.45 + 6.24). Also, the lower leg length (cm), foot length (cm),
forehand length (cm) and hand length (cm) of the male participants were longer than
64
the female one while the thigh length (cm) and upper arm length (cm) of the female
participants were longer. No matter the male or female participants, all the means of
the measurements increased with the grade. The only exceptions were the Body Mass
Index and the hand length in males.
Table 3 Testing Result of the Anthropometric Measurement of all the Participants (N = 60) N M SD Minimum MaximumStature (cm) 60 106.01 6.19 94.2 117.1 Body Weight (lb) 60 40.80 6.05 30.2 55.8 Body Mass Index 60 16.46 1.55 12.46 19.90 Thigh length (cm) 60 27.62 3.01 22.3 34.1 Lower leg length (cm) 60 23.33 2.40 18.3 28.8 Foot length (cm) 60 16.42 1.29 14.0 19.9 Upper arm length (cm) 60 19.05 2.04 11.7 23.5 Forearm length (cm) 60 15.85 1.46 12.0 19.1 Hand length (cm) 60 12.62 1.13 10.3 15.3
Table 4a Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Male Participants (n = 31) Group n M SD Minimum MaximumStature (cm) All 31 106.71 6.19 96.5 117.1 K1 10 101.82 3.92 97.1 107.8 K2 11 106.98 6.72 96.5 117.1 K3 10 111.31 3.46 105.3 115.3 Body Weight (lb) All 31 41.14 5.95 31.2 55.8 K1 10 39.14 4.05 32.6 46.2 K2 11 40.93 8.46 31.2 55.8 K3 10 43.37 3.47 39.0 47.5 Body Mass Index All 31 16.38 1.51 12.46 19.90 K1 10 17.12 0.88 15.30 18.28
65
K2 11 16.14 2.13 12.46 19.90 K3 10 15.90 0.91 14.22 17.49 Thigh length (cm) All 31 27.34 3.22 22.3 34.1 K1 10 24.65 1.19 23.4 27.1 K2 11 26.76 2.70 22.3 30.9 K3 10 30.65 2.10 28.2 34.1 Lower leg length (cm) All 31 23.69 2.77 18.3 28.8 K1 10 21.40 1.15 19.4 22.9 K2 11 23.42 3.07 18.3 28.8 K3 10 26.26 0.69 25.3 27.5 Foot length (cm) All 31 16.64 1.34 14.0 19.9 K1 10 15.67 0.55 15.0 16.6 K2 11 16.59 1.41 14.0 19.5 K3 10 17.67 1.12 16.1 19.9 Upper arm length (cm) All 31 18.80 2.18 11.7 23.5 K1 10 17.90 1.08 16.5 19.4 K2 11 18.66 2.92 11.7 22.3 K3 10 19.87 1.75 18.0 23.5 Forearm length (cm) All 31 16.22 1.49 13.8 19.1 K1 10 15.27 1.04 14.1 16.8 K2 11 15.73 1.32 13.8 17.6 K3 10 17.72 0.77 16.9 19.1 Hand length (cm) All 31 12.83 1.12 11.0 15.3 K1 10 12.64 0.63 12.0 13.6 K2 11 12.43 1.23 11.0 14.9 K3 10 13.47 1.18 11.9 15.3
Table 4b Testing Result of the Body Measurement of the Female Participants (n = 29) Group n M SD Minimum MaximumStature (cm) All 29 105.26 6.22 94.2 116.5 K1 10 99.82 4.59 94.2 106.4 K2 9 105.86 4.45 96.1 110.4 K3 10 110.16 4.64 100.1 116.5 Body weight (lb) All 29 40.45 6.24 30.2 51.6 K1 10 36.80 5.69 30.2 45.0
66
K2 9 38.84 4.49 32.2 46.2 K3 10 45.54 4.97 37.4 51.6 Body Mass Index All 29 16.54 1.62 13.61 19.60 K1 10 16.70 1.40 14.50 18.73 K2 9 15.77 1.69 13.61 18.34 K3 10 17.07 1.66 13.99 19.60 Thigh length (cm) All 29 27.93 2.78 22.5 33.8 K1 10 26.43 2.13 22.5 28.5 K2 9 27.03 2.31 24.2 31.2 K3 10 30.24 2.37 27.1 33.8 Lower leg length (cm) All 29 22.96 1.90 19.8 27.5 K1 10 21.59 1.32 19.8 23.4 K2 9 23.21 1.80 20.3 25.3 K3 10 24.10 1.75 22.3 27.5 Foot length (cm) All 29 16.18 1.20 14.0 18.3 K1 10 15.15 0.83 14.0 16.4 K2 9 16.21 1.02 14.1 17.6 K3 10 17.17 0.78 16.1 18.3 Upper arm length (cm) All 29 19.31 1.88 14.5 22.6 K1 10 18.58 1.07 17.5 20.1 K2 9 19.31 1.58 16.1 21.5 K3 10 20.03 2.54 14.5 22.6 Forearm length (cm) All 29 15.50 1.33 12.0 18.7 K1 10 14.70 0.59 13.9 15.6 K2 9 15.78 1.96 12.0 18.7 K3 10 15.89 0.88 14.5 17.8 Hand length (cm) All 29 12.40 1.12 10.3 14.5 K1 10 11.42 0.78 10.3 12.3 K2 9 12.23 0.65 10.9 13.0 K3 10 13.53 0.65 12.5 14.5
Testing Result of the TGMD-2
The raw score means and standard deviations by gender and grade for the two
subtests were shown in Table 5. Female participants scored higher in the locomotor
67
subtest (M = 33.21 + 8.35) than the male participants (M = 30.65 + 9.01). On the
other hand, the male participants scored higher in the object control subtest (M =
29.06 + 8.71) than the male participants (M = 26.9 + 8.46). Moreover, with the higher
grade, the scores in the locomotor subtest for female participants, as well as the object
control subtest for both the male and female participants were increased.
Table 5 The Raw Score Means and Standard Deviations by Gender and Grade for the Two Subtests (N = 60)
Male Female LOCO OB LOCO OB n M SD M SD n M SD M SD
All 31 30.65 9.01 29.06 8.71 29 33.21 8.35 26.90 8.46K1 10 26.30 6.50 23.20 6.50 10 28.40 5.48 21.70 5.46K2 11 26.18 7.48 27.18 6.11 9 31.89 9.14 26.00 7.76
Grade
K3 10 39.90 5.07 37.00 7.51 10 39.20 6.71 32.90 8.28Note. LOCO = Locomotor subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point;
OB = Object control subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point.
The 25th-, 50th- and 75th-percentiles score equivalent in all the twelve motor skills
for the male and female participants in K1, K2 and K3 were shown in Table 6a and
Table 6b accordingly. The percentiles represent values that indicate the percentage of
the distribution that is equal to or below a particular raw score (Ulrich, 2000).
Generally, a value fall between the 25th- and 75th-percentiles is considered as average,
the one fall above 75th-percentile and less than 25 are considered as above average
68
and below average respectively.
Table 6a Percentiles of the Raw Scores of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for Male Participants (n = 31)
Grade Percentiles K1 K2 K3
n 10 11 10 25th 38 43 66 50th 50 55 81
TGMD
75th 63 65 86 25th 21 20 35 50th 27 29 41
LOCO
75th 32 30 44 25th 17 22 28 50th 23 26 39
OB
75th 30 33 44 Note. LOCO = Locomotor subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point;
OB = Object control subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point.
69
Table 6b Percentiles of the Raw Scores of the Subtests and TGMD-2 for Female Participants (n = 29)
Grade Percentiles K1 K2 K3
n 10 9 10 25th 43 43 59 50th 51 57 76
TGMD
75th 57 72 85 25th 24 23 33 50th 29 33 41
LOCO
75th 33 40 45 25th 16 20 24 50th 22 24 35
OB
75th 27 33 40 Note. LOCO = Locomotor subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point;
OB = Object control subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point.
In the TGMD-2, the raw scores of each subtest ranged from 0 to 48 points. Each
of the twelve motor skills contained 3 to 5 performance criteria which described the
mature pattern of the skill (Ulrich, 2000). The acquisition of a particular skill maturely
can be represented by getting full points of the skill. In Table 7a and Table 7b, the
percentage of male and female participants demonstrating mastery on the twelve
motor skills at each grade was revealed separately.
70
Table 7a Percentage of Male Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the 12 Motor Skills (n = 31) Grade
Motor skill items K1 K2 K3 n 10 11 10
Run 10.0 9.1 100.0 Gallop 10.0 0.0 20.0 Hop 0.0 9.1 40.0 Leap 0.0 0.0 30.0 Horizontal jump 0.0 9.1 10.0 Slide 20.0 27.3 90.0 Striking a stationary ball 0.0 0.0 40.0 Stationary dribble 0.0 9.1 60.0 Catch 10.0 9.1 20.0 Kick 10.0 9.1 30.0 Overhand throw 0.0 0.0 20.0 Underhand roll 0.0 0.0 0.0
71
Table 7b Percentage of Female Participants Demonstrating Mastery on the 12 Motor Skills (n = 29) Grade
Motor skill items K1 K2 K3 n 10 9 10
Run 20.0 33.3 80.0 Gallop 0.0 11.1 40.0 Hop 0.0 22.2 10.0 Leap 10.0 0.0 20.0 Horizontal jump 0.0 0.0 40.0 Slide 30.0 22.2 100.0 Striking a stationary ball 0.0 0.0 10.0 Stationary dribble 0.0 11.1 10.0 Catch 0.0 0.0 30.0 Kick 0.0 11.1 20.0 Overhand throw 0.0 0.0 30.0 Underhand roll 0.0 0.0 0.0
An Analysis of Correlation among the Twelve Motor Skills and the Nine Body
Measurements of the K1, K2 and K3 children
A Bivariate correlational method, the Pearson product moment coefficient of
correlation (r) was used to determine the relationships among the nine body
measurements and the raw scores of the locomotor subtest and the object control
subtest. The Pearson correlation coefficient and the coefficient of determination were
shown.
In Table 8, the nine body measurements were correlated with the raw scores of
the locomotor subtest in all the kindergarten children. A significant positive
72
correlations were found between the raw scores of the locomotor subtest and eight of
the anthropometric measurements: the stature (r = 0.60, p < 0.05), body weight (r =
0.45, p < 0.05), thigh length (r = 0.62, p < 0.05), lower leg length (r = 0.50, p < 0.05),
foot length (r = 0.59, p < 0.05), upper arm length (r = 0.38, p < 0.05), forearm length
(r = 0.50, p < 0.05) and hand length (r = 0.58, p < 0.05). Hence the null hypothesis
that there was no relationship between the raw scores of locomotor subtest and
anthropometric measures of the body segments in the kindergarten children was
rejected.
Table 8 Pearson’s Correlation Test between the 9 Body Measurements and the Raw Scores of the Locomotor Subtest (N = 60) R r2 p Stature 0.60** 0.36 0.000 Body weight 0.45** 0.20 0.000 Body Mass Index -0.01 0.00 0.921 Thigh length 0.62** 0.39 0.000 Lower leg length 0.50** 0.25 0.000 Foot length 0.59** 0.35 0.000 Upper arm length 0.38** 0.14 0.003 Forearm length 0.50** 0.25 0.000 Hand length 0.58** 0.34 0.000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
In Table 9, raw scores of the object control subtest were correlated with the nine
body measurements in all the kindergarten children. Similarly, a significant positive
73
correlations were found between the raw scores of the object control subtest and eight
of the anthropometric measurements: the stature (r = 0.69, p < 0.05), body weight (r =
0.60, p < 0.05), thigh length (r = 0.70, p < 0.05), lower leg length (r = 0.62, p < 0.05),
foot length (r = 0.77, p < 0.05), upper arm length (r = 0.46, p < 0.05), forearm length
(r = 0.64, p < 0.05) and hand length (r = 0.66, p < 0.05). Hence the null hypothesis
that there was no relationship between the raw scores of object control subtest and
anthropometric measures of the body segments in the kindergarten children was
rejected.
Table 9 Pearson’s Correlation Test between the 9 Body Measurements and the Raw Scores of the Object Control Subtest (N = 60) R r2 p Stature 0.69** 0.47 0.000 Body weight 0.60** 0.36 0.000 Body Mass Index 0.10 0.01 0.431 Thigh length 0.70** 0.50 0.000 Lower leg length 0.62** 0.39 0.000 Foot length 0.77** 0.59 0.000 Upper arm length 0.46** 0.21 0.000 Forearm length 0.64** 0.41 0.000 Hand length 0.66** 0.43 0.000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
In regarding the strength of the relationships, 0.25 or lower is weak, 0.50 is
moderate, 0.51 to 0.75 is fair, and 0.76 and above is high (Berg & Latin, 2004). From
74
Table 8, stature, thigh length, foot length and hand length showed a fair strength while
the other four (body weight, lower leg length, upper arm length, forearm length)
showed a moderate strength of relationship to the raw scores of the locomotor subtest.
On the other hand, concerning the strength of relationship between the raw scores of
object control subtest and body measurements, upper arm length showed a moderate
strength while foot length showed a high strength. The rest of the measurements
(stature, body weight, thigh length, lower leg length, forearm length, hand length) also
showed a fair strength of relationship.
Figure 9 illustrated the relationship between the foot length and the raw scores of
the object control test for all participants. Since the Pearson correlation coefficient
was 0.77 (r = 0.77) and the coefficient of determination was 0.59 (r2 = 0.59), the
variance shared by or common to the variable is 59%. It showed that the contribution
of the foot length was 59% to the raw scores of the object control subtest, which was
the highest one among the body measurements.
75
Note. Independent variable (X- axis): object control score Dependent variable (Y- axis): foot length
Figure 9. Scatter-plot Showing the Relationship (r = 0.77) between the Foot Length and the Raw Scores of the Object Control Test for All Participants (N = 60)
Multiple Regression Analyses
Two regression equations were established to determine which variables could
contribute to the explained variance for the raw scores of the two subtests, by using
the stepwise regression method. Statistics concerning the equations for the two
subtests like the r, r2, Standard Error of the Estimate (SEE), F change and the level of
significance were presented in Table 10 and Table 11 correspondingly.
76
From Table 10, two out of nine body measurements were included in the
equation for explaining the variance of the locomotor subtest’s raw scores. The best
explained variable was thigh length (r = 0.62, p < 0.05). The r2 was 0.39, the SEE was
6.87 and the F change was 36.91. The second valued variable was hand length. There
was a significant correlation (r = 0.68, p < 0.05) between both thigh length and hand
length with the raw scores of the locomotor subtest. The r2 was 0.46, the SEE was
6.50 and the F change was 7.84. The other variables including stature, body weight,
BMI, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length and forearm length were not
good variables for explaining the variance for the raw scores of the locomotor subtest.
Refer to the hypothesis, thigh length and hand length were the best linear combination
of variables explaining the variance for the raw scores of the locomotor subtest.
Table 10 Statistics Concerning the Regression Equation for the Raw Scores of the Locomotor Subtest (N = 60) Included variable (stepwise) r r2 SEE F Change p Thigh length 0.62 0.39 6.87 36.91 0.001*Hand length 0.68 0.46 6.50 7.84 0.007** Significant difference at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) a. Predictors: (Constant), Thigh length b. Predictors: (Constant), Thigh length, Hand length c. Dependent Variable: Locomotor score
Table 11 showed that two out of nine body measurements were included in the
77
equation for explaining the variance of the object control subtest’s raw scores. The
best explained variable was foot length (r = 0.77, p < 0.05). The r2 was 0.59, the SEE
was 5.53 and the F change was 84.32. The second valued variable was thigh length.
There was a significant correlation (r = 0.79, p < 0.05) between both foot length and
thigh length with the raw scores of the object control subtest. The r2 was 0.63, the
SEE was 5.31 and the F change was 5.87. The other variables including stature, body
weight, BMI, lower leg length, upper arm length, forearm length and hand length
were not good variables for explaining the variance for the raw scores of the object
control subtest. Refer to the hypothesis, foot length and thigh length were the best
linear combination of variables explaining the variance for the raw scores of the
locomotor subtest.
Table 11 Statistics Concerning the Regression Equation for the Raw Scores of the Object Control Subtest (N = 60) Included variable (stepwise) r r2 SEE F Change p Foot length 0.77 0.59 5.53 84.32 0.000*Thigh length 0.79 0.63 5.31 5.87 0.019** Significant difference at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) a. Predictors: (Constant), Foot length b. Predictors: (Constant), Foot length, Thigh length c. Dependent Variable: Object control score
78
Discussions
The discussion chapter was divided into four sections: (a) relationship between
the raw scores of the two motor subtests and the body measurements in kindergarten
children; (b) regression equations for the raw scores of the two motor subtests; (c);
testing result of the anthropometric measures of the body segments; and (d) testing
result of the TGMD-2.
Relationship between the Raw Scores of the Two Motor Subtests and the Body
Measurements in Kindergarten Children
Examining the relationship of the motor tests and body measurements was the
core part of the study. According to Haubenstricker and Sapp (1980), body size and
structure contributed as much as 25 percent or more to the motor performance. From
Table 8 and Table 9, the results of the Pearson product moment coefficient of
correlation revealed that stature, body weight, thigh length, lower leg length, upper
arm length, forearm length and hand length had a positive significant relationship
with the raw scores of the locomotor subtest and object control subtest. In other words,
a higher value in body height, body weight and the length of extremities was
associated with better scores of the TGMD-2. A similar result was shown by Benefice
in 1992. In his research, body dimensions and motor performance tests were measured
on a group of 88 healthy Senegalese children who aged 3 to 6 years of age. The result
79
suggested that variations in motor performances were particularly due to body weight
and stature.
To determine the strength of the correlation in this study, the coefficient of
determination (r2) was calculated and demonstrated in Table 8 and Table 9. The
shared relationship of the raw scores of the locomotor subtest and thigh length was
39%. 36% of the variance was shared by the raw scores and stature, while 35% and
34% were shared by the raw scores and foot length as well as hand length
correspondingly. The relationships between these four anthropometric measurements
and the raw scores of the locomotor subtest were quite strong and meaningful. On the
contrary, the variance shared by the forearm length, lower leg length, body weight,
upper arm length, and the raw scores of the locomotor subtest were 25%, 25%, 20%
and 14% respectively, which were comparatively meaningless.
Regarding the strength of relationship between the raw scores of the object
control subtest and the body measurements in this study, foot length was the most
significant variable. The variance accounted for by their relationship was 59%. The
thigh length (r2 = 50%), stature (r2 = 47%), hand length (r2 = 43%), forearm length (r2
= 41%), lower leg length (r2 = 39%) and body weight (r2 = 36%) also demonstrated a
strong relationship with the object control subtest by the coefficient of determination.
Lastly, the least meaningful correlated variable was upper arm length; only 21% of
80
the variance was shared with the raw scores of the object control subtest.
It was shown that the anthropometric measurements showed a much stronger and
meaningful relationship with the raw scores of the object control subtest. The finding
was supported by Haubenstricker and Sapp (1980), who claimed that male’s greater
arm length could be an advantage to boys in object control tasks. From the result of
this study, the mean of the arm length in male participants was 35.02 (the sum of
upper arm length and forearm length) while the one in female participants was 34.81.
Male participants also got a higher raw score in object control subtest (M = 29.06)
than the female (M = 26.90).
The strong positive relationship between the body measurements and the object
control subtest was in agreement with early findings in the study of Parizhova and
Adamec (1980). In their study, 58 preschool children were followed longitudinally and
the anthropometric dimensions and motor performance were measured. The results
indicated that boys had greater values for height, weight and lengths, and at the same
time had also better performances in cricket ball throwing. Furthermore, a similar
finding was shown by Loovis and Butterfield (2003), who examined the relationship
between hand length and catching performance by 257 pre-school children. They
suggested that the hand length contributed significantly to catching accuracy and
catching form.
81
Among the nine body measurements in this study, Body Mass Index was the
only one that demonstrated no relationship with the raw scores of the locomotor
subtest (r = -0.01, p > 0.05) and the object control subtest (r = 0.10, p > 0.05).
However, a different finding was shown by Okely, Booth and Chey (2004), who
suggested that the children's ability to perform fundamental motor skills was
significantly related to the Body Mass Index. The fundamental motor skills included
run, vertical jump, throw, catch, kick and strike. The possible explanations for these
results might be due to the small sample size of subjects in this study (N = 60), and the
older age of the participants in the study of Okely et al.
Regression Equations for the Raw Scores of the Two Motor Subtests
After the demonstration of positive correlation between the body measurements
and the raw scores of the two subtests, the variables were put into two regression
equations. Using the stepwise regression method, thigh length and hand length were
shown to be the good explained variables for the raw scores of the locomotor subtest
(r = 0.68, p < 0.05). The SEE was 6.50, which was acceptable. On the other hand, foot
length and thigh length were shown to be the best explained variables for the raw
scores of the object control subtest (r = 0.79, p < 0.05). The SEE was 5.31, which was
also acceptable.
Very interestingly, hand length was one of the explained variables in explaining
82
the variance for the raw scores of the locomotor subtest while foot length was one of
the explained variables in explaining the variance for the raw scores the object control
subtest. A possible explanation might be the presence of rather strong positive
correlation between the thigh length, hand length, foot length and age. In Table 12, the
Pearson correlation coefficient and the coefficient of determination of the variables
were displayed. The shared variance between age and thigh length, hand length, foot
length were 44%, 26%, 43% accordingly. It indicated older age contributed to the
greater value in thigh length, hand length and foot length, and led to better raw scores
in the two motor subtests. Age was a significant variable that could affect motor
performance (Haywood & Getchell, 2001). The finding was also supported by the
Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development in 1991, who
suggested that age and body development contributed to the increased motor
performance of the preschool children.
83
Table 12 Pearson’s Correlation Test between the Thigh Length, Hand Length, Foot Length and Age (N = 60)
Age Thigh length Hand length Foot length r r2
Age
p
1 1
0.66** 0.44 0.00
0.51** 0.26 0.00
0.66** 0.43 0.00
r r2
Thigh length
p
0.66** 0.44 0.00
1 1
0.57** 0.33 0.00
0.75** 0.56 0.00
r r2
Hand length
p
0.51** 0.26 0.00
0.57** 0.33 0.00
1 1
0.78** 0.61 0.00
r r2
Foot length
p
0.66** 0.43 0.00
0.75** 0.56 0.00
0.78** 0.61 0.00
1 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The results of the regression analyses are useful for the Physical Education
teachers, coaches and recreation program providers. As thigh length and hand length,
foot length and thigh length were found to be the best variables for explaining the
variance of the locomotor subtest’ raw scores and the object control subtest’ raw
scores respectively, the general motor performance of the children can be revealed
from the relative length of the body segments. As a result, this serves as a simple way
for grouping children according to their motor abilities. The professionals may further
design different activities and trainings for groups in different abilities. For example,
for the group with lower raw scores in the object control subtest (the children with
84
shorter foot length and thigh length), the teachers may target at training up children’s
object control skills in the lessons.
Testing Result of the Anthropometric Measures of the Body Segments
In this section, the WHO Child Growth Standards (WHO, 2006) were adopted
and compared to the 60 children in the present study. The WHO Child Growth
Standards including standards on height, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), head
circumference, arm circumference, subscapular skinfold and triceps skinfold, and
could be applied to all the children around the world (WHO, 2006). In 2006, Dr.
Adenike Grange, the President of the International Pediatric Association claimed that
“the WHO Child Growth Standards are a major new tool for providing the best health
care and nutrition to all the world’s children” (Health Education to Villages, 2006). To
investigate the nutrition status of the Hong Kong kindergarten children, three of the
body measurements were focused on, the body height, body weight and Body Mass
Index. The body height and body weight played an important role in screening for
obesity, unusual growth and malnutrition (Gordan et al., 1988) while BMI was a
reliable indicator of body fatness for most children and teens (Centers for Diseases
Control and prevention, 2007). The assessment was valuable that the government may
rely on the results to formulate health and related policies.
In Figure 10 and Figure 11, comparisons were made on the 50th-percentiles of
85
height, weight and BMI between the present study and the WHO Child Growth
Standards for both genders. To compare the results in a more convenient way, all the
K1 preschoolers in the present study were categorized in 3 years old, all the K2
preschoolers were categorized in 4 years old and all the K3 preschoolers were
categorized in 5 years old. Generally, the Hong Kong children achieved a higher value
in body height and body weight. The results implied that the nutrition status of the
participants were satisfactory. Besides, the BMI of the Hong Kong children were
higher than the standard set by the WHO. Refer to the standard set by the Centers for
Diseases Control and prevention (2007), the healthy weight for children ranged from
5th percentile to less than the 85th percentile. Appreciably, the ratio of the participants
fell within the healthy range.
86
Figure 10. Comparison on Height, Weight and BMI (50th-percentiles) between the
Present Study and the WHO Child Growth Standards for the Male Participants
87
Figure 11. Comparison on Height, Weight and BMI (50th-percentiles) between the Present Study and the WHO Child Growth Standards for the Female Participants
Testing Result of the TGMD-2
Aforementioned, the findings regarding the gender difference in motor ability of
children were not consistent. Toriola and Igbokwe (1986) successfully showed that
preschool boys performed better than the girls in the motor tests while Pennington &
Kelly (2002) concluded in their study that insignificant gender differences in either
gross motor or fine motor abilities was found in preschool aged children. In the
present study, the male participants performed better in the object control subtest (M =
29.06 + 8.71) than the female (M = 26.90 + 8.46). On the other hand, the female
88
participants, who got a mean raw score 33.21 + 8.35, outperformed the male in the
locomotor subtest (M = 30.65 + 9.01). The results coincided with some of the
researchers’ doctrines. In 2006, Junaid and Fellowes suggested that boys developed
ball skills earlier than girls. Keogh and Sugden (1985) also reported that young boys
had small and significantly better mean performance scores on "play-game" skills
such as kicking and throwing. Besides, Broverman, Klaiber, Kobayashi and Vogel
(1968) stated that females outperformed males in tasks that required rapid and skillful
repetition, such as galloping and hopping.
In Figure 12 and Figure 13, a 50th-percentile comparison was made on the raw
scores of the two subtests and TGMD-2 between the present study and a past study
that conducted in Hong Kong. In 2006, Wong and Cheung examined the TGMD-2 on
1251 Hong Kong Chinese children (N = 1251). Among the participants, 625 of them
aged 3 to 5 years old (N = 625). The motor performances of the male participants
were compared in Figure 12 while the one of the female participants were compared
in Figure 13. Again, all the K1, K2 and K3 children in the present study were
categorized in 3, 4 and 5 years old respectively.
89
Note. TGMD = TGMD-2 with score ranged from 0 to 96 point; LOCO = Locomotor subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point;
OB = Object control subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point.
Figure 12. Comparison on Subtests and Total Raw Scores of the TGMD-2 (50th-percentile) between the Present Study and the Study of Wong & Cheung (2006)
for the Male Participants
90
Note. TGMD = TGMD-2 with score ranged from 0 to 96 point; LOCO = Locomotor subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point;
OB = Object control subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point.
Figure 13. Comparison on Subtests and Total Raw Scores of the TGMD-2 (50th-percentile) between the Present Study and the Study of Wong & Cheung (2006)
for the Female Participants
The total raw scores in the 50th-percentile of the present study was 50, 55 and 81
in 3, 4 and 5 years old boys respectively. The performances were much better when
comparing to the total raw scores in the 50th-percentile of the Wong and Cheung’s
study (34, 47 and 57 in 3, 4 and 5 years old boys accordingly). Regarding the girls’
performance, the total raw scores in the 50th-percentile of the present study was 51, 57
and 76 in the respective age groups. Similarly, the female participants got a lower
91
total raw scores in the 50th-percentile in the Wong and Cheung’s study (37, 42 and 45
in 3, 4 and 5 years old accordingly). The difference between the two results might be
explained by the following reasons. First, the variations in sample size as well as the
quality of examiners. A bigger sample size (N = 625) and more professional
examiners in the study of Wong and Cheung (2006) might contribute to a different
raw scores of the TGMD-2. Second, the variations in the background of the
participants. The Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten is located in Kowloon
Tong, a district where many middle to high class families lived in. Possibly, a better
living environment and nutrition was provided to the 60 children in the present study.
The better development of the children might lead to a better motor performance.
Thomas, Thomas and Gallaher suggested in 1993 that the presence of opportunity and
parental expectations could influence a child’s gross motor skills acquisition.
Moreover, the exercise habits and interest in sport might be different among the
participants. The participants in the present study were quite active. A mean score of 2
in exercise habits was shown in Table 1. On average, the 60 children participated in
exercise twice a week (one time participation was defined to participate in activities
involving large muscle groups, and over 30 minutes duration). Besides, the
participants also indicated a strong interest in sports. The mean score was 3.47 with 1
regarded as the least interest and 5 regarded as the strongest interest. Without doubt, a
92
strong interest and high participation rate were correlated with the motor performance.
Last but not the least, the variations in the school environment and curriculum could
be a factor. The play area of the Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten was big
and safe (See Appendix L). The equipment was also abundant and of wide variety.
This might also contribute to the difference in children’ motor performance.
Apart from the study of Wong and Cheung (2006), the test results were also
compared to the corresponding information listed in the manual of TGMD-2 (Ulrich,
2000). The information was validated on 1208 American children who aged 3 to 10.
Among the 1208 participants, 115 of them aged 3, 114 of them aged 4 and 103 of
them aged 5. In Table 13, the raw scores mean and standard deviation of the two
subtests between the three studies were presented. Surprisingly, the motor
performance of the children in the present study outperformed the American children.
Again, the occurrence of above variations, as well as the present of culture variations
between Hong Kong and America might explain the difference in motor performance.
Cultural difference in motor ability was supported by Ruiz, Graupera, Gutiérrez and
Miyahara in 2003. In their study, a total of 102 Japanese children, 521 American
children and 385 Spanish children participated in the Movement Assessment Battery
for Children (Movement ABC). The cross-cultural comparisons revealed that there
were many differences in motor performance among the participants.
93
Table 13 Comparison on Raw Scores Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Two Subtests between the Present Study, the Study of Wong & Cheung (2006) and the one in the Manual of TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000) Male Female
Study Age LOCO OB LOCO OB 3 4
Present study
5
26 (7) 26 (7) 40 (5)
23 (7) 27 (6) 37 (8)
28 (5) 32 (9) 39 (7)
22 (5) 26 (8) 33 (8)
3 4
Study of Wong & Cheung (2006)
5
21 (7) 29 (9) 34 (6)
13 (6) 18 (6) 23 (8)
24 (6) 28 (9) 34 (6)
12 (6) 15 (5) 18 (5)
3 4
Manual of TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000)
5
19 (7) 27 (9) 33 (9)
20 (11) 25 (9) 30 (10)
21 (9) 29 (9) 32 (7)
17 (9) 22 (7) 25 (8)
Note. LOCO = Locomotor subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point; OB = Object control subtest with score ranged from 0 to 48 point.
94
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary of Results
This study was designed to examine the relationship between the motor skill
performance and anthropometric measures of body segments in the kindergarten
children. Two regression equations between the anthropometric measurements and the
raw scores of the locomotor subtest and object control subtest were also performed.
A total of 31 males and 29 females from the Hong Kong Baptist University
Kindergarten participated in the study. The Test of Gross Motor Development-Second
Edition (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000) was used to measure their motor skill performance.
Anthropometric measurements were used to determine the lengths of body segments
(thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length, hand
length), the stature, body weight and the Body Mass Index. Furthermore, children
were asked about their exercise habits and interest in sport. Collected data were
analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) for window 15.0
version computer program. Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation and
multiple regression method were used with the alpha level being set at 0.05.
The results of this study were summarized as follows:
1. There was a significant positive relationship between the raw scores of locomotor
95
subtest and eight anthropometric measures of the body segments in the
kindergarten children, at the 0.05 level of significance: stature (r = 0.60, p < 0.05),
body weight (r = 0.45, p < 0.05), thigh length (r = 0.62, p < 0.05), lower leg length
(r = 0.50, p < 0.05), foot length (r = 0.59, p < 0.05), upper arm length (r = 0.38, p
< 0.05), forearm length (r = 0.50, p < 0.05) and hand length (r = 0.58, p < 0.05).
2. The contribution of the anthropometric measures of the stature, body weight, thigh
length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length and hand
length to the raw scores of the locomotor subtest were 36%, 20%, 39%, 25%, 35%,
14%, 25% and 34% respectively.
3. There was a significant positive relationship between the raw scores of object
control subtest and eight anthropometric measures of the body segments in the
kindergarten children, at the 0.05 level of significance: stature (r = 0.69, p < 0.05),
body weight (r = 0.60, p < 0.05), thigh length (r = 0.70, p < 0.05), lower leg length
(r = 0.62, p < 0.05), foot length (r = 0.77, p < 0.05), upper arm length (r = 0.46, p
< 0.05), forearm length (r = 0.64, p < 0.05), hand length (r = 0.66, p < 0.05).
4. The contribution of the anthropometric measures of the stature, body weight, thigh
length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length and hand
length to the raw scores of the object control subtest were 47%, 36%, 50%, 39%,
59%, 21%, 41% and 43% respectively.
96
5. The linear combination of anthropometric variables of thigh length and hand
length explained a total of 46% of variance for the locomotor subtest in the
kindergarten children.
6. The linear combination of anthropometric variables of foot length and thigh length
explained a total of 63% of variance for the object control subtest in the
kindergarten children.
Conclusions
On one hand, this study concluded that eight of the selected body measurements
were positively correlated with the raw scores of the locomotor subtest and object
control subtest. The result indicated that a higher value in stature, body weight, thigh
length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length and hand
length a child has, a better performance in locomotor subtest and object control
subtest. On the other hand, the regression analyses revealed that thigh length and hand
length could explain the variance for the raw scores of the locomotor subtest in the
kindergarten children. Moreover, foot length and thigh length could explain the
variance for the raw scores of the object control subtest in the kindergarten children.
Recommendations for Further Study
Further recommendations for this study are as follows:
1. The sample size should be enlarged in order to obtain more representatives.
97
2. The sample should be obtained from different kindergartens to recruit participants
from different family background.
3. To get a more comprehensive picture for the relationship between the two findings,
other anthropometric measurements such as subscapular and triceps skinfold
should be included.
4. To get a more precise testing result in the TGMD-2, the scorers should be trained
in longer hours with the scoring exercises.
5. To prevent the occurrence of learning effect, each participant should perform the
motor skills separately, and without learning from the experience of others.
6. To ensure the TGMD-2 conducted with sufficient time, it was recommended to
include the assessment as part of the school curriculum, and carry out in the
outdoor activity periods of the schooldays.
98
REFERENCES
Abernethy, P., Olds, T., Eden, B., Neill, M., & Baines, L. (1996). Anthropometry,
health and body composition. In K. Norton, & T. Olds (Eds.), Anthropometrica: A textbook of body measurement for sports and health courses (pp. 366-388). Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.
ATP Tour (1995). ATP 1995 player guide. Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida: ATP Tour. Aynur, B. A., Esra, A., Neriman, A., & Hülya, K. (2007). Correlations of conceptual
development with motor skills for a Turkish sample of kindergarten children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105(1), 261.
Benefice, E. (1992). Growth and motor-performance of healthy Senegalese preschool
children. American Journal of Human Biology, 4(6), 717-728. Berg, K. E., & Latin, R. W. (2004). Essentials of research methods in health, physical
education, exercise science, and recreation. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Botha, M. G. (1982). The influence of the home environment on the motor
performance of preschool children. P.E.D. dissertation, Indiana University, United States-Indiana. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 8300870).
Bouchard, C. (1988). Human variation in anthropometric dimensions. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 103-105). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bracker, B. A. (1998). Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace and Company. Bray, G. A. (1992). Pathophysiology of obesity. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 55, 488S-494S.
99
Bray, G. A., & Gray, D. S. (1988). Anthropometric measurements in the obese. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 131-136). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Broverman, D. M., Klaiber, E. L., Kobayashi, Y., & Vogel, W. (1968). Roles of
activation and inhibition in sex differences in cognitive abilities. Psychological Review, 75(1), 23-50.
Bruininks, R. (1978). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency: Examiners
Manual. Minnesota: American Guidance Service. Callaway, C. W., Chumlea, W. C., Bouchard, C., Himes, J. H., Lohman, T. G., Martin,
A. D., Mitchell, C. D., Mueller, W. H., Roche, A. F., & Seefeldt, V. D. (1988). Circumferences. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 39-54). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Centre for Health Protection (2007). Statistics on Behavioral Risk Factors. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://www.chp.gov.hk/behavioural.asp?lang=en&id=280&pid=10&ppid Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (2007). About BMI for Children and
Teens. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/childrens_BMI/about_childrens_BMI.htm#How%20is%20BMI%20calculated
Cheng, J. C., Leung, S. S., & Lau, J. (1996). Anthropometric measurements and body
proportions among Chinese children. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 323, 22-30.
Clark, J. E., & Whitall, J. (1989). What is motor development: The lessons of history.
Quest, 41, 183-202. Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development (1991, January, 1).
Early Childhood Development from Two to Six Years of Age. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.ecdgroup.com/docs/Early_Childhood_Development_from_Two_to_Six_Years_of_Age-14_05_2001-12_33_10.pdf
100
Desgorces, F. D., Chennaoui, M., & Guezennec, C. Y. (2004). Influence of anthropometrics parameters on rowing performance at national level. Science & Sports, 19(6), 327-329.
Dintiman, G., & Ward, R. (2003). Sport speed. (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics. Eaton, W., & Enns, L. (1986). Sex differences in human motor activity level. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 19-28. Elisana, P., Konstantina, K., & Vasilios, G. (2005). Gender differences in musical
aptitude, rhythmic ability and motor performance in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 175(4), 361-369.
Eveleth, P. B., & Tanner, J. M. (1976). Worldwide variation in human growth.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Falls, J. (1977). The Boston Marathon (pp. 163-165). New York: Macmillan. Ford, L. E. (1984). Some consequences of body size. American Journal of Physiology,
247, H495-H507. Frederick, S. D. (1977). Performance of selected motor tasks by three, four and five
year old children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Cited in Gallahue, D. L. (1982). Understanding Motor Development in Children. New York: John Wiley.
Gallahue, D. L., & Ozmun, L. C. (1995). Understanding motor development: infant,
children, adolescents, adults. (Dubuque, IA, W.C. Brown and Benchmark). Gordan, C. C., Chumlea, W. C., & Roche, A. F. (1988). Stature, recumbent length, and
weight. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 3-8). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Graf, C., Koch, B., Kretschmann-Kandel, E., Falkowski, G., Christ, H., Coburger, S.,
et al. (2004). Correlation between BMI, leisure habits and motor abilities in childhood. International Journal of Obesity & Related Metabolic Disorders, 28(1), 22-26.
101
Haubenstricker, J., & Seefeldt, V. (1986). Acquisition of motor skills during infancy and early childhood. In V, Seefeldt (Ed.), Physical activity and well-being (pp. 41-102). Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education; American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Haubenstricker, J. L., & Sapp, M. M. (1980). A longitudinal look at physical growth
and motor performance: Implications for elementary and middle school activity programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Detroit, MI.
Haywood, K. M., & Getchell, N. (2001). Lifespan motor development. (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Health Education to Villages (2006). The WHO Child Growth Standards. Retrieved
March 17, 2008, from http://hetv.org/resources/childgrowth/index.html Heyward, V. H., & Stolarczyk, L. M. (1996). Applied body composition assessment.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Himes, J. H., & Frisancho, R. A. (1988). Estimating frame size. In T. G. Lohman, A. F.
Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 121-124). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Isaacs, L. D. (1976). The anatomical changes of the center of gravity during
development: Implications to physical education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.
Johnston, F. E., & Martorell, R. (1988). Population surveys. In T. G. Lohman, A. F.
Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 107-110). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Junaid, K. A. & Fellowes, S. (2006). Gender differences in the attainment of motor skills on the movement assessment battery for children. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 26(1/2), 5-11. Keogh, J., & Sugden, D. (1985). Movement skill development. New York: Macmillan.
102
Kinnunen, D. A., Colon, G., Espinoza, D., Overby, L. Y., & Lewis, D. K. (2001). Anthropometric correlates of basketball free-throw shootings by young girls. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 93(1), 105-108.
Kondo, S., & Eto, M. (1975). Physical growth studies on Japanese-American children
in comparison with native Japanese. In S. M. Horvath, S. Kondo, H. Matsui, & H. Yoshimura (Eds.), Human adaptability: Vol. I. Comparative studies on human adaptability of Japanese, Caucasians and Japanese Americans (pp. 13-45). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Laban, R. (1980). Modern educational dance (1st ed.). Boston: Plays, Inc. Lam, M. Y., Ip, M. H., Lui, P. K., & Kwong, M. K. (2003). How teachers can assess
kindergarten children’s motor performance in Hong Kong. Early Child Development and Care, 173(1), 109–118.
Loesch, D. Z., Lafranchi, M., & Ruffolo, C. (1990). Hand locomotor functions, body
structure, and epidermal ridge patterns. An International Record of Research, 62(5), 665-79.
Loovis, E. M., & Butterfield, S. A. (2003). Relationship of hand length to catching
performance by children in kindergarten to grade 2. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 96(3), 1194-1196.
Malina, R. M. (1988). Physical anthropology. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R.
Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 99-102). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Malina, R. M., Hamill, P. V. V., & Lemeshow, S. (1974). Body dimensions and proportions, white and Negro children 6-11 years, United States (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 143). Washington, District of Columbia: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Martin, A. D., Carter, J. E. L., Hendy, K. C., & Malina, R. M. (1988). Segment lengths. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 9-26). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
103
Mayhew, J. L. (1993). Anthropometric correlates with strength performance among resistance trained athletes. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 33(2), 159-165.
Medekova, H., Zapletalova, L., & Havlicek, I. (2000). Habitual physical activity in children according to their motor performance and sports activity of their parents. Gymnica, 30(1), 21-21.
Morris, A. M., Atwater, A. E., Williams, J. M., & Wilmore, J. H. (1981). Motor performance and anthropometric screening: measurements for preschool age children. Motor skills: theory into practice, 3, 49-64.
Morris, A. M., Williams, J. M., Atwater, A. E., & Wilmore, J. H. (1982). Age and sex
differences in motor performance of 3 through 6 year old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 53(3), 214-221.
Norton, K., Olds, T., Olive, S., & Craig, N. (1996). Anthropometry and sports
performance. In K. Norton, & T. Olds (Eds.), Anthropometrica: A textbook of body measurement for sports and health courses (pp. 287-352). Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.
Norton, K., Whittingham, N., Carter, L., Kerr, D., Gore, C., & Marfell-Jones, M.
(1996). Measurement techniques in anthropometry. In K. Norton, & T. Olds (Eds.), Anthropometrica: A textbook of body measurement for sports and health courses (pp. 25-73). Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.
Okely, A. D., Booth, M. L., & Chey, T. (2004). Relationships between body
composition and fundamental movement skills among children and adolescents. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 75(3), 238-237.
Orit, B., Dov, H., & Yair, Bar-Haim. (2007). Predicting school adjustment from motor
abilities in kindergarten. Infant and Child Development, 16(6), 597. Paasuke, M., Lauk, I., Ereline, J., Gapeyeva, H., & Likberg, R. (2001). Motor
performance of lower extremities in 5-year-old children. Acta Kinesiologiae Universitatis Tartuensis, 6, 121-130.
104
Parizkova, J., & Adamec, A. (1980). Longitudinal study of anthropometric, skinfold, work, and motor characteristics of boys and girls, three to six years of age. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 52(3), 387-396.
Pate, R. R., Ross, J. G., Dotson, C. O. & Gilbert, G. G. (1985). The national children
and youth fitness study: A comparison with the 1980 AAHPERD norms. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 56(1), 70–76.
Payne, V. G., & Isaacs, L. D. (2005). Human motor development: A lifespan approach.
(6th ed.). Boston, IL: McGraw-Hill.
Pennington, & Kelly, R. (2002). Gender differences in gross and fine motor abilities in preschool-aged children in West Virginia. M. A. dissertation, Marshall University, United States - West Virginia. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 1415587).
Raudsepp, L., & Jurimae, T. (1996). Relationships between somatic variables,
physical activity, fitness and fundamental motor skills in prepubertal boys. Biology of Sport, 13(4), 279-289.
Raudsepp, L. & Paasuke, M. (1995). Gender differences in fundamental movement patterns, motor performances, and strength measurements of prepubertal children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7(3), 294-304. Reilly, T., Tyrrell, A., & Troup, T. D. G. (1984). Circadian variation in human stature.
Chronobiol. Int., 1, 121-126. Robinow, M., & Chumlea, W. C. (1982). Standards for limb bone length ratios in
children. Radiology, 143, 433-436. Ross, W. D., & Marfell-Jones, M. T. (1991). Kinanthropometry. In J. D. MacDougall,
H. A. Wenger, & H. J. Green (Eds.), Physiological testing of the high-performance athlete (2nd ed.) (pp. 223-308). Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Rubin, K. H. (2001). The Play Observation Scale (POS). Unpublished Manual,
University of Maryland.
105
Ruiz, L. M., Graupera, J. L., Gutiérrez, M. & Miyahara, M. (2003). The assessment of motor coordination in children with the Movement ABC test: a comparative study among Japan, USA and Spain. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 15(1), 22. Seidell, J. C., Cigolini, M., Charzwska, J., Ellsinger, B.-M., Deslypere, J. P., & Cruz,
A. (1992). Fat distribution in European men: a comparison of anthropometric measurements in relation to cardiovascular risk factors. International Journal of Obesity, 16, 17-22.
Sellen, D. W. (2000). Age, sex and anthropometric status of children in an African
pastoral community. Annals of Human Biology, 27(4), 345-365. Research Yearbook 2004, 10(10), 43-50.
Sjöstrom, L. V. (1992). Morbidity of severely obese subjects. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 55, 508S-515S.
Smith, D. W. (1976). Recognizable patterns of human malnutrition, genetic, embryologic and clinical aspects (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Steigelman, & Gwen (1981). The role of motor performance in the social status of
preschool children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, United States - Oregon. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 8209680).
Suchomel, A. (2002). Anthropometric somatotype of children with low and high motor performance. Acta Kinesiologiae Universitatis Tartuensis, 7, 187-191.
Sumner, E. E., & Whitacre, J. (1931). Some factors affecting accuracy in the
collection of data on the growth of weight in school children. Journal of Nutrition, 4, 15-33.
Taggart, A., & Keegan, L. (1997). Development fundamental movement skills in
outdoor settings: Three case studies of children playing. The ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 44(4), 11-17.
106
Tanner, J. M., Hayashi, T., Preece, M. A., & Cameron, N. (1982). Increase in length of leg relative to trunk in Japanese children and adults from 1957 to 1977: Comparison with British and with Japanese-Americans. Annals of Human Biology, 9, 411-423.
Taylor, C. (1975). Rhythm: A guild for creative movement. Palo Alto, CA: Peek Publications.
Thomas, J. R., Thomas, K. T., & Gallaher, J. D. (1993). Developmental considerations
in skill acquisition. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp.73-105). New York: MacMillan. Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of gross motor development: examiner’s manual (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Timothy, G. L., Alex, F. R., & Reynald, M. (1988). Anthropometric standardization
reference manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Toriola, A. L., & Igbokwe, N. U. (1986). Age and sex differences in motor performance of pre-school Nigerian children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 4(3), 219-227.
Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of Gross Motor Development-2. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Van-Itallie, T. B. (1988). Topography of body fat: relationship to risk of
cardiovascular and other diseases. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 143-149). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Visnapuu, M., & Jurimae, T. (2007). Handgrip strength and hand dimensions in young
handball and basketball players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(3), 923-929.
Wang, J. H. T. (2004). A study on gross motor skills of preschool children. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 19(1), 32-43.
Wilby, J., Linge, K., Reilly, T., & Troup, J. D. G. (1985). Circadian variation in effects of circuit weight training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 19, 236.
107
Wilmore, J. H. (1988). Sports medicine. In T. G. Lohman, A. F. Roche, & R. Martorell (Eds.), Anthropometric standardization reference manual (pp. 155-159). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wong, A. K. Y., & Cheung, S. Y. (2006). Gross motor skills performance of Hong Kong Chinese children. Journal of Physical Education & Recreation (Hong Kong), 12(2), 23-29.
World Health Organization (2006). BMI-for-age in Boys Percentile: 2 to 5 Years.
Retrieved January 15, 2008, from https://www.who.int/entity/childgrowth/standards/cht_bfa_boys_p_2_5.pdf
World Health Organization (2006). BMI-for-age in Girls Percentile: 2 to 5 Years. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from https://www.who.int/entity/childgrowth/standards/cht_bfa_girls_p_2_5.pdf
World Health Organization (2006). Height-for-age in Boys Percentile: 2 to 5 Years.
Retrieved January 15, 2008, from https://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/cht_hfa_boys_p_2_5.pdf
World Health Organization (2006). Height-for-age in Girls Percentile: 2 to 5 Years.
Retrieved January 15, 2008, from https://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/cht_hfa_girls_p_2_5.pdf
World Health Organization (2006). Weight-for-age in Boys Percentile: 2 to 5 Years.
Retrieved January 15, 2008, from https://www.who.int/entity/childgrowth/standards/cht_wfa_boys_p_2_5.pdf
World Health Organization (2006). Weight-for-age in Girls Percentile: 2 to 5 Years.
Retrieved January 15, 2008, from https://www.who.int/entity/childgrowth/standards/cht_wfa_girls_p_2_5.pdf
Yair, Bar-Haim., & Orit, B. (2006). Motor function and social participation in
kindergarten children. Social Development, 15(2), 296-310.
Zapletalove, L., & Medekova, H. (2003). The relationship between children's personal traits, motor activity and motor performance. Gymnica, 33(1), 11-18.
108
APPENDIX A
Height-for-age Percentiles for Boys Aged from 2 to 5 Years
109
APPENDIX B
Height-for-age Percentiles for Girls Aged from 2 to 5 Years
110
APPENDIX C
Weight-for-age Percentiles for Boys Aged from 2 to 5 Years
111
APPENDIX D
Weight-for-age Percentiles for Girls Aged from 2 to 5 Years
112
APPENDIX E
Body Mass Index-for-age Percentiles for Boys Aged from 2 to 5 Years
113
APPENDIX F
Body Mass Index-for-age Percentiles for Girls Aged from 2 to 5 Years
114
APPENDIX G
Questionnaire of the Study
115
APPENDIX H
Record Sheets of the TGMD-2
Identifying Information Date of testing _____________________ Name of subject____________________ Grade □ K1 □ K2 □ K3
Starting time ______________________ Examiner _________________________ Gender □ Male □ Female
Record of Scores Preferred hand Preferred foot
□ Right □ Left □ Not established □ Right □ Left □ Not established
Locomotor Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial 1 Trial 2 Scor
e 1. Arms move in opposition to legs,
elbows bent
2. Brief period where both feet are off the ground
3. Narrow foot placement landing on heel or toe (i.e., not flat footed)
1. Run
4. Nonsupport leg bent approximately 90 degrees (i.e., close to buttocks)
Skill score
1. Arms bent and lifted to waist level at takeoff
2. A step forward with the lead foot followed by a step with the trailing foot to a position adjacent to or behind the lead foot
2. Gallop
3. Brief period when both feet are off the floor
116
4. Maintains a rhythmic pattern for four consecutive gallops
Skill score
1. Nonsupport leg swings forward in pendular fashion to produce force
2. Foot of nonsupport leg remains behind body
3. Arms flexed and swing forward to produce force
4. Takes off and lands three consecutive times on preferred foot
3. Hop
5. Takes off and lands three consecutive times on non-preferred foot
Skill score
1. Take off on one foot and land on the opposite foot
2. A period where both feet are off the ground longer than running
4. Leap
3. Forward reach with the arm opposite the lead foot
Skill score
1. Preparatory movement includes flexion of both knees with arms extended behind body
2. Arms extend forcefully forward and upward reaching full extension above the head
3. Take off and land on both feet simultaneously
5. Horizontal Jump
4. Arms are thrust downward during landing
Skill score
117
6. Slide 1. Body turned sideways so shoulders are aligned with the line on the floor
2. A step sideways with lead foot followed by a slide of the trailing foot to a point next to the lead foot
3. A minimum of four continuous step-slide cycles to the right
4. A minimum of four continuous step-slide cycles to the left
Skill score
Locomotor Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores)
Object Control Subtest Skill Performance criteria Trial 1 Trial 2 Scor
e 1. Dominant hand grips bat above
non-dominant hand
2. Non-preferred side of body faces the imaginary tosser with feet parallel
3. Hip and shoulder rotation during swing
4. Transfers body weight to front foot
1. Striking a Stationary Ball
5. Bat contacts ball Skill score
1. Contacts ball with one hand at
about belt level
2. Pushes ball with fingertips (not a slap)
3. Ball contacts surface in front of or to the outside of foot on the preferred side
2. Stationary Dribble
4. Maintains control of ball for four consecutive bounces without having to move the feet to retrieve it
Skill score
118
1. Preparation phase where hands are
in front of the body and elbows are flexed
2. Arms extend while reaching for the ball as it arrives
3. Catch
3. Ball is caught by hands only Skill score
1. rapid continuous approach to the ball
2. An elongated stride or leap immediately prior to ball contact
3. Non-kicking foot placed even with or slightly in back of the ball
4. Kick
4. Kicks ball with instep of preferred foot (shoelaces) or toe
Skill score
1. Windup is initiated with downward movement of hand/arm
2. Rotates hip and shoulders to a point where the non-throwing side faces the wall
3. Weight is transferred by stepping with the foot opposite the throwing hand
5. Overhand Throw
4. Follow-through beyond ball release diagonally across the body toward the non-preferred side
Skill score
1. Preferred hand swings down and back, reaching behind the trunk while chest faces cones
6. Underhand Roll
2. Strides forward with foot opposite the preferred hand toward the
119
cones 3. Bends knees to lower body 4. Releases ball close to the floor so
ball does not bounce more than 4 inches high
Skill score
Object Control Subtest Raw Score (sum of the 6 skill scores) Testing conditions
A. Placed tested _______________________________________________________
Interfering Not interfering B. Noise level C. Interruptions D. Distractions E. Light F. Temperature
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
G. Notes and other considerations __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ending time _______________________
Signature of examiner _______________
APPENDIX I
Record Sheets of the Anthropometric Measurement Test
120
APPENDIX J
Instruments of the Test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (Ulrich, 2000)
121
APPENDIX K
Letter to the Principal of the Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten
122
Dear Principal,
Relationships between motor skill performance and anthropometric measures of body segments in the kindergarten children
I am Kuk Yuen Lum Eunice, a year 3 student in the Hong Kong Baptist
University majoring in Physical Education and Recreation Management, is now going to complete my Honor Project on the mentioned topic above. The purpose of the study was to find out the relationship between motor skill performance and anthropometric measures of body segments, in the Hong Kong kindergarten children. In other words, I’d like to examine the relationship between arm length and catching performance, leg length and kicking performance etc. The test results will be useful in the following aspects: let the children know more about their inherent physical ability; compare the anthropometric and motor skills data of the children to the norm set in other countries; and to provide useful information to the P.E. teachers and coaches to select potential athletes.
In this research, a simple motor test and some anthropometric measurements will be conducted. The motor test includes six locomotor skills (run, gallop, hop, leap, horizontal jump and slide) and six object control skills (striking a stationary ball, stationary dribble, catch, kick, overhand throw and underhand roll). Then, a quick measurement of body proportions will be followed: the stature, body weight, waist girth, hip girth, thigh length, lower leg length, foot length, upper arm length, forearm length and hand length. Moreover, some demographic information will be asked, such as the age and physical activity pattern. All data obtained will be kept strictly confidential.
I should be grateful if you could allow 60 students to participate in this research, with 10 boys and 10 girls in each grade (K1, K2 and K3). I do hope that the simple tests can be held in one of the activity rooms or outdoor open area in your kindergarten. The measurement will be conducted during the play time of the children and I expect data collection can be completed within 4-5 visits to your school. My project will not disrupt your school’s normal class teaching.
A summary sheet of this research will be sent to you after completing the project. If you have inquires, please feel free to contact me at 64060040. My project supervisor is Prof. Bik Chow (office tel: 3411 7007). Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
123
(Eunice Kuk Yuen Lum)
APPENDIX L
124
Play Area of the Hong Kong Baptist University Kindergarten
